From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hobson v. Safeway Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 17, 2013
No. 12-15217 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013)

Summary

holding that district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint because plaintiff filed that motion after filing a notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.

Opinion

No. 12-15217 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00928-FJM

12-17-2013

MAX M. HOBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAFEWAY INCORPORATED; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Max M. Hobson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his employment action arising from his termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The record does not show that Hobson properly served defendant Burd. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) ("A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4."). Thus, Hobson was not entitled to entry of default.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's post-judgment order denying Hobson's motion for leave to file an amended complaint because Hobson failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007) (appellant generally must file a separate notice of appeal or amend a previously filed notice of appeal to secure review of a post-judgment order). Moreover, the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Hobson's motion because Hobson filed it after he filed his notice of appeal. See Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that "[t]he filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed," and holding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider motion for leave to file an amended complaint that was filed after notice of appeal).

We reject Hobson's contentions regarding whether defendants Gephart and McClure properly joined the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

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) (per curiam).

Hobson's request for nine judges to preside over his case, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hobson v. Safeway Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 17, 2013
No. 12-15217 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013)

holding that district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint because plaintiff filed that motion after filing a notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.

holding that district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint because plaintiff filed that motion after filing a notice of appeal

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Montgomery
Case details for

Hobson v. Safeway Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MAX M. HOBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAFEWAY INCORPORATED; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 17, 2013

Citations

No. 12-15217 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013)

Citing Cases

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.

Circuit. The Court first addresses Defendants' jurisdictional argument. As a general rule, the filing of a…

Johnson v. Montgomery

The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional…