Debbie Dancer v. SEATTLE HEMPFEST, Seattle Events

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBBIE DANCER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SEATTLE HEMPFEST, Seattle Events,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35799
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00288-SLG-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Debbie Dancer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her diversity action alleging state law tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856,
859 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35799
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dancer failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Seattle Hempfest was
vicariously liable for the conduct of non-defendants Nordica Friedrich and Niki
Raapana on social media. See Harris v. Keys, 948 P.2d 460, 464 (Alaska 1997)
(“Under Alaska law, an agency relation exists only if there has been a
manifestation of the principal to the agent that the agent may act on his account
and consent by the agent to so act.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also City of Delta Junction v. Mack Truck, Inc., 670 P.2d 1128, 1130
(Alaska 1983) (explaining that it is the principal’s conduct that gives rise to
liability and that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the principal was
responsible for the appearance of authority).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --