BRUCE THOMAS V. SNAP-ON INCORPORATED, No. 12-56525 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BRUCE THOMAS, an individual., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-56525 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01435-JAHRBB v. SNAP-ON INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Bruce Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his post-judgment requests for an early neutral evaluation and a settlement conference in his action alleging that defendant misappropriated his intellectual property. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002), and review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s compliance with its local rules concerning early neutral evaluation, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Thomas’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over disputes involving citizens of different states and an amount in controversy over $75,000.00). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’s postjudgment requests for an early neutral evaluation and a settlement conference because Thomas did not have a complaint pending before the court. See Bias, 508 F.3d at 1223 (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also CivLR 16.1(c)(1) (an early neutral evaluation conference must be held within forty-five days of the filing of an answer or, if the answer has not been filed, as determined by the assigned judicial officer). 2 12-56525 Thomas’s motion to expedite, filed on December 18, 2014, is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 3 12-56525
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.
