Joel Joseph v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Joel Joseph v. Nordstrom, Inc.

700 F. App'x 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 2017

Docket16-56895

StatusUnpublished

This text of 700 F. App'x 768 (Joel Joseph v. Nordstrom, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joel Joseph v. Nordstrom, Inc., 700 F. App'x 768 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions to reopen his diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joseph’s motion to reopen his case or his motion to reconsider the denial of that motion because Joseph failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).

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

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions to reopen his diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joseph’s motion to reopen his case or his motion to reconsider the denial of that motion because Joseph failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).

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

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

John Garamendi v. Jean-Francois Hennin

683 F.3d 1069 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joel-joseph-v-nordstrom-inc-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack