ROBERT MOORE V. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, No. 20-35877 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT GARVIN MOORE; TERESA JEAN MOORE, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-35877 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05412-RJB Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Robert Garvin Moore and Teresa Jean Moore appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to comply with a court order the appeal of their bankruptcy court action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. * 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). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Moores’ action because the Moores failed to file an opening brief by the deadline set by the district court. See id. at 640, 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (district court may dismiss appeal on its own motion for failure to file a brief on time). 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). The pending motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 16 and 24) are denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 20-35877

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.