Jeffrey Heston v. Gb Capital Holdings, LLC
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- William Q. Hayes (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY GLENN HESTON, No. 18-55125 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00912-WQH- AGS v. GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited MEMORANDUM* Liability Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Glenn Heston appeals pro se from the district court’s January 5, 2018 post-judgment order denying relief from its order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing Heston’s action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, * 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). Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Heston’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because Heston failed to set forth any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
We do not consider the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the action, or the December 15, 2016 order denying Heston’s motion for relief, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (a motion under Rule 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a time limit not prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule and if properly invoked, mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-55125