ALBERT JACOBS, JR. V. WHEATON VAN LINES, INC., No. 18-16207 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT L. JACOBS, Jr.; LINDA SPECTOR JACOBS, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16207 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03967-JAT Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. WHEATON VAN LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Albert L. Jacobs, Jr. and Linda Spector Jacobs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment action against Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. In their opening brief, plaintiffs fail to raise, and therefore have waived, any * 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). challenge to the district court’s ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their declaratory judgment action. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the district court resolved plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action against defendant before it addressed defendant’s action against Ms. Jacobs. We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court should have ruled on their motion for summary judgment on the merits. AFFIRMED. 2 18-16207

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.