Joel David Joseph v. Nordstrom, Inc.; New Balance Athletics, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL DAVID JOSEPH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORDSTROM, INC.; NEW BALANCE
ATHLETICS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56895
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02252-PSG-AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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). Joseph’s requests for oral
argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.
FILED
NOV 9 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56895
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.

-- 2 of 2 --