WEBSTER v. TRAIL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 20-35787

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Webster's appeal.

Brent Webster appealed pro se from a district court decision that dismissed his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had overruled Webster's objection to a proof of claim submitted by Alex Trail and Connie Trail. Webster's opening brief on appeal failed to explain how the district court had made an error in dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. Because Webster did not raise this argument in his opening brief, he forfeited his challenge to the dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Webster waived his jurisdictional challenge by failing to address it in his opening brief
Standards for preservation of arguments on appeal

Procedural posture

Webster appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his appeal of a bankruptcy court order overruling his objection to a proof of claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy courts order overruling his objection to the proof of claim filed by Alex Trail and Connie Trail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district courts order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim․”).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.