Shalaby v. Newell Brands Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-679
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW W. SHALABY; SONIA DUNN- No. 24-679 RUIZ, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

NEWELL BRANDS INC., on behalf of the defendant formerly known as Bernzomatic, an unincorporated division of Irwin Industrial Tool Company, and Newell Operating Company,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

BERNZOMATIC, an unincorporated division of Irwin Industrial Tool Company; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Andrew W. Shalaby, a pro se attorney, and Sonia Dunn-Ruiz, represented by

Shalaby, appeal from the district court’s orders denying post-judgment relief and

imposing sanctions in Shalaby’s diversity action. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to lift the pre-filing

order nunc pro tunc as to Dunn-Ruiz. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d

434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion must show “extraordinary

circumstances” to justify relief); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (setting forth

who may be subject to an injunction).

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

terminate the pre-filing order as to himself because Shalaby did not demonstrate a

basis for such relief. See SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2001)

(setting forth standard of review and discussing conditions under which a district

court may modify a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a monetary

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-679 sanction on Shalaby because Shalaby willfully disobeyed the district court’s order

regarding further frivolous motions. See Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d

1075, 1087-90 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth standard of review and requirements

for sanctions under the district court’s inherent authority).

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).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 13) to deem timely the notice of appeal of the

sanction matter is denied as unnecessary because Shalaby filed an amended notice

of appeal.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-679