Robert Garvin Moore; Teresa Jean Moore v. Phh Mortgage Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GARVIN MOORE; TERESA
JEAN MOORE,
Appellants,
v.
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 20-35877
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05412-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Garvin Moore and Teresa Jean Moore appeal pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing for failure to comply with a court order the appeal of their
bankruptcy court action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order.
* 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 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35877
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Moores’
action because the Moores failed to file an opening brief by the deadline set by the
district court. See id. at 640, 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining
whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that
dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the
district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (district court may dismiss
appeal on its own motion for failure to file a brief on time).
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 pending motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 16 and 24) are
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --