
    Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RCN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-17557.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
    Laurie Marie Laskey, Jacksonville, NC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Allison Young, Esquire, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, Esquire, Counsel, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo Robert Taylor, Mintz Levin, Palo Alto, CA, Nathan Richard Hamler, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, PC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in her diversity of citizenship action against RCN Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med., Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Laskey failed to controvert RCN’s evidence that her claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1 (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and product liability claims); Cal Civ. Proc.Code § 338(b) (providing a three-year statute of limitations for injury to property); Cal. Civ.Code § 1708.7 (providing a three-year statute of limitations for stalking); Cal. Civ.Code § 1798.96 (providing a four-year statute of limitations for identity theft).

We do not consider Laskey’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.2007).

Laskey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Laskey’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     