BRAD GREENSPAN V. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, No. 16-15908 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRAD GREENSPAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15908 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-04187-RMW v. MEMORANDUM* IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Brad Greenspan appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute Greenspan’s putative shareholder class action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. * 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). In his opening brief, Greenspan failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his action or any other district court order, and therefore Greenspan waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”). Greenspan’s notice of appeal challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) May 2, 2016 Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, which was filed in the district court, should have been filed in this court. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f) (providing that certain determinations of whistleblower awards “may be appealed to the appropriate court of appeals of the United States not more than 30 days after the determination is issued by the Commission”). We construe Greenspan’s notice of appeal as a petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(4). In the interests of justice, we transfer Greenspan’s petition for review to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1989) (setting forth conditions for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631); see also Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[B]ecause the purpose of the transfer statute is to aid litigants who were confused about the proper forum for review, a petition that would be time-barred without a transfer satisfies the interest 2 16-15908 of justice test.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Clerk shall file Greenspan’s notice of appeal (District Court Docket Entry No. 104) as a petition for review of the SEC’s May 2, 2016 order and open a new case in this court. Greenspan’s motion to certify questions of law to the Delaware Supreme Court (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 16-15908
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
