Hackbarth
Hackbarth v. Regents of University of California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Joan Hackbarth appeals pro se from orders of the district court dismissing her 6th Amended Corrective Complaint with prejudice and striking her opposition to the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the court’s local rules and prior order. Because the district court intended its order to dismiss the action, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169 , 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
We review the district court’s rulings regarding local rules for abuse of discretion, Prof'l Programs Group v. Dep’t of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349 , 1353 (9th Cir. 1994), and dismissal of the complaint de novo, Stone v. Travelers Corp., 58 F.3d 434, 436-37 (9th Cir.1995). Because Hackbarth’s counsel did not comply with the district court’s January 27, 2000 order directing how and when the opposition to the motion to dismiss was to be filed, the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking the opposition. Cf Couveau v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 218 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (reversing sanction for violating local rule where district court did not state reason for imposing…