ROSS MASSBAUM V. USA, No. 17-56262 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSS MASSBAUM; FLORINA MASSBAUM, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-56262 D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00650-DOC-JDE Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Erroneously Sued As Internal Revenue Service, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Ross and Florina Massbaum appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their action seeking repayment of funds paid to the Internal Revenue Service in relation to a dispute over their tax * 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). liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. In their opening brief, the Massbaums fail to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal of their action. As a result, they have waived any challenges to the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments 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 . . . .”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-56262

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.