JOEL JOSEPH V. NORDSTROM, INC., No. 16-56895 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL DAVID JOSEPH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56895 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02252-PSG-AJW v. MEMORANDUM* NORDSTROM, INC.; NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 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. 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 16-56895

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.