RAYMOND A. MONTES, Jr. v. Desert Community College District;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND A. MONTES, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56146
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01846-JGB-DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Raymond A. Montes, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his post-judgment motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(a), following a jury verdict in his disability discrimination action.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
* 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
SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56146
discretion. Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Montes’s motion
for a new trial because Montes failed to set forth any basis for such relief. See
Crowley v. Epicept Corp., 883 F.3d 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth grounds
for a new trial under Rule 59(a)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings
regarding the Engebretson note or the Maldonado letter. See Fed. R. Evid. 408
(evidence of an offer to compromise is not admissible to prove or disprove the
validity of a disputed claim), 801(c) (hearsay inadmissible if offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement); Wagner v. County of
Maricopa, 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).
We do not consider issues 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.

-- 2 of 2 --