Opinion
No. 18-15176
04-25-2019
QIN LI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00573-LEK-RLP MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Qin Li appeals pro se from the jury verdict in her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Li waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial before the district court. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, a party must file both a pre-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial under Rule 50(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.