SHELIA MASON V. MEDIFIT CORP. SERVS., INC., No. 18-16230 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHELIA MASON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16230 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:17-cv-02542-JST MEMORANDUM* MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., DBA EXOS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Sheila Mason appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying postjudgment motions in her diversity action alleging employment discrimination claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, * 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). 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mason’s motions for reconsideration because Mason failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); see also Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A party will not be released from a poor litigation decision made because of inaccurate information or advice, even if provided by an attorney.”). We do not consider Mason’s contentions regarding the underlying judgment because Mason failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling motions must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (an untimely second motion for reconsideration does not toll time to appeal underlying judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997). We reject as without merit Mason’s contentions that she signed the mediator’s proposal under duress or that defendants acted in a fraudulent manner. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 14) are 2 18-16230 denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 3 18-16230
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.
