RAYMOND MONTES V. DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST., No. 17-56146 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND A. MONTES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-56146 D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01846-JGB-DTB v. MEMORANDUM* DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Raymond A. Montes, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), following a jury verdict in his disability discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * 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). discretion. Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Montes’s motion for a new trial because Montes failed to set forth any basis for such relief. See Crowley v. Epicept Corp., 883 F.3d 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Rule 59(a)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings regarding the Engebretson note or the Maldonado letter. See Fed. R. Evid. 408 (evidence of an offer to compromise is not admissible to prove or disprove the validity of a disputed claim), 801(c) (hearsay inadmissible if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement); Wagner v. County of Maricopa, 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). We do not consider issues 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 17-56146

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.