Jensen

MEMORANDUM *

Cheriel Jensen (“Jensen”) appeals pro se the judgment entered on a jury verdict rejecting part of her claims and a summary judgment against her on the balance of her action. Jensen sought damages for injuries allegedly due to pesticide exposure in the workplace while she was employed by Santa Clara County (“the County”). *205 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here except as necessary to explain our decision.

I. Summary judgment

Jensen argues that upon our remand in her earlier appeal, the district court had no power to summarily dismiss her counts based on negligence per se and conducting ultra-hazardous activity. She misunderstood the remand. See Jensen v. Santa Clara, Nos. 94-16063, 94-16824, 1995 WL 635114 (9th Cir. Oct.26, 1995) (unpublished).

Our remand order merely held that certain of her claims were not barred by California’s one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Jensen, 1995 WL 635114 , at *4. We also reversed the dismissal of Jensen’s complaint against Applied Pest Management, Inc.…