N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID C HANDLER , AKA Ta re k Abdo, an individual,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. THE NEIM AN M A R C US GR OUP, INC .,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-56623 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02091-H-KSC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, WA RDLAW , a nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. David C ha

ndle r (re a l na

m e Ta re k Abdo) a

ppe a ls thede nia l of his motion for a ne wtria l following entry of judgm e nt in his ne glige n c e and pre m ise s lia bility a c tion a ga inst theNe im an M a rc us Group, Inc . 

# FIL ED SEP 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r C ha ndle r’ s a p pe a l be c a

use he file d

it m ore tha

n 30 da y s a fte r the distric t

c ourt’ s e ntry

of fina l judgm e nt . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a )(1)(A); Unite d State

s v . Sadle r , 480 F.3d 932, 936–37 (9th C ir. 2007). C ha ndle r is inc orre c t tha

t his m otion for a

ne w tria l e xte nde d the de a d line to file his notic e of a

p pe a l, be c a

use his ne w tria l m otion wa s itse lf untim e ly . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a )(4)(A); Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(b). Nor do we have jurisdic tion ove r C ha ndle r’ s a ppe a l of the orde r de ny ing his new tria l m otion, be c a use the distric t c ourt la c k e d jurisdic tion to de c ide the m otion in the first insta nc e . Se eTillman v . Ass’n of Apartme

nt Ow ne r s of Ew a Apartme nts , 234 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th C ir. 2000). C ha ndle r’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt e xte nde d the filing de a dline for R ule 59(b) m otions, there b y re nde ring both his m

otion a nd this a ppe a l tim e ly , fa ils on the la w a s we ll a s the fa c ts. A distric t c ourt m ay not e xte nd the de a d line to file a ne wtria l m otion be y o nd the 28-da y pe riod pre sc ribe d by

R ule 59(b). Fe d. R . C iv. P. 6(b)(2). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not purport to e xte nd the de a dline , be c a use its sta te m e nt tha

t the tim e to file post-tria l m otions wa s e xte nde d wa s lim ite d to m otions where the c ourt wa s “ le g a lly pe rm itte d to do so.” C ha ndle r inc o rre c tly

a sse rts tha

t the tim e to filean a

ppe a l be ga

n running only whe n the distric t c ourt e nte re d its orde r taxing c osts, ne arly two m onths a fte r 2judgm e nt on the m e rits. B e c a use “ a re que s t for c osts ra ise s issue s wholly c olla te ra l to the judgm e nt in them a in c a use of a c tion. . . ,” Buc hanan v . Stanships, Inc . , 485 U.S. 265, 268 (1989), the de a dline to m ove for a

ne w tria l unde r R

ule 59 is m e a sure d from

the distric t

c ourt’ s e ntry

of judgm e nt on them e rits, not from its a sse ssm e nt of c osts. Se eFamilian N w ., Inc . v . RG&

B C o ntrac tors, Inc . , 21 F.3d 952, 954–55 (9th C ir. 1994). Eve n if we we re to c onc lude tha t we have jurisdic tion ove r C ha ndle r’ s a ppe a l, we would re

je c t C ha ndle r’ s c la im that

the c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by de c lining to give

an instruc t ion on the am ount of c are an e m ploy e e m ust ta k e whe re he is re quire d

to work “ in a

position of possible da

nge r.” Se e Austin v . Riv e rside Portland C

e m e nt C o . , 44 C a l. 2d 225, 239 (1955) (c ita tions a n d inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). C h a ndle r’ s propose d instruc tion wa s ne ithe r “ supporte d by la w” nor by the c i rc um sta

nc e s of this c a se . Se eJ

one s v . W illiams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th C ir. 2002). Theinstruc tion would ha ve be e n ina

ppropria te be c a use the fitting room

in whic h C ha

ndle r wa s working when he hit his he a d doe s not qua lify a s da nge rous, a

nd be c a use C ha ndle r wa s not “re quire d” to work in the fitting room

and ha d a

n opportunity to ta

ke pre c a utions to re duc e the risk of ha rm . DISM I SSE D.

3