BRIAN CARTER V. OATH HOLDINGS, INC., No. 18-17318 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN K. CARTER, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17318 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-07086-KAW v. MEMORANDUM* OATH HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 11, 2019*** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Brian K. Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging trademark infringement claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Carter’s filing challenging defendant’s correction in its notice of removal of the proper named defendant, or by denying Carter’s motions for “award of compensation.” See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has inherent power to control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket). In his opening brief, Carter fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his 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). AFFIRMED. 2 18-17318

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.