WEBSTER v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 20-35798

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Webster's appeal.

Webster appealed pro se from a district court judgment that dismissed his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had denied relief on his objections filed in connection with hearings held on April 30, 2020, in an adversary proceeding against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The appellate court found that Webster failed to address in his opening brief how the district court had erred in dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, thereby waiving that challenge. Additionally, the court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
Waiver of arguments not raised in the opening brief
Consideration of new arguments on appeal

Procedural posture

Webster appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his appeal of a bankruptcy court order denying relief on his objections.

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 denying any relief sought in his “objections to no evidence hearings on April 30, 2020,” in his adversary proceeding against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. 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.