Shelia Mason v. Medifit Corporate Services, Inc., Dba Exos

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHELIA MASON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
DBA EXOS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16230

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-02542-JST

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Sheila Mason appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying post-
judgment motions in her diversity action alleging employment discrimination
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

*
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

DEC 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-16230
1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mason’s motions
for reconsideration because Mason failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); see also Latshaw v.
Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A party will
not be released from a poor litigation decision made because of inaccurate
information or advice, even if provided by an attorney.”).
We do not consider Mason’s contentions regarding the underlying judgment
because Mason failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that judgment. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment);
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling motions must be filed
within 28 days of the entry of judgment); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343, 1344-45
(9th Cir. 1987) (an untimely second motion for reconsideration does not toll time
to appeal underlying judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera
Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997).
We reject as without merit Mason’s contentions that she signed the
mediator’s proposal under duress or that defendants acted in a fraudulent manner.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 14) are

3 18-16230
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.