facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See T.B. ex rel Brenneise v. San Diego

Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451, 473 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a retaliation

claim under the ADA); Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045

(9th Cir. 1999) (elements of a prima facie case under Title II of the ADA or the

RA). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karam leave to

amend these claims. See Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th

Cir. 2004) (“Where the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint … the

district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Karam’s disability

discrimination claim against the Arizona Board of Regents because Karam failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was excluded from

participation in, or denied the benefits of, her educational program because of her

disability. See Zukle, 166 F.3d at 1045.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Karam’s

retaliation claim against the Arizona Board of Regents because Karam failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any adverse action occurred

3 22-15332 because of protected activity. See Brenneise, 806 F.3d at 473 (setting forth the

elements of a retaliation claim under the ADA and explaining that the “more

stringent test” of but-for causation applies to such claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karam’s motion

relating to the preservation of emails because Karam failed to show she was

prejudiced by the lack of such discovery. See Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.

Co., 685 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and stating

that “[a] district court abuses its discretion only if the party requesting a

continuance can show that allowing additional discovery would have precluded

summary judgment”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Karam’s motion to file a supplemental opening brief (Docket Entry No. 27)

is granted. The Clerk will file the supplemental opening brief received on October

17, 2022. Karam’s motions for an extension of time to file reply brief and motion

to file reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 50, 51, and 59) are granted. The Clerk will

file the reply briefs received at Docket Entry Nos. 53, 54, 55, and 60.

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

4 22-15332