Case Name: Julian Ari SHULMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-07
Citations: 658 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 15-35017
Parties: Julian Ari SHULMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Julian Ari SHULMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35017
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 7, 2016
Joseph Haddad, JJH Law, P.C., Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Deidra Anneliese Nguyen, Attorney, James G. Zissler, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Shulman’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied,

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julian Ari Shulman appeals from the district court's order denying his motions for relief from final judgment in his action under the Family Medical Leave Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shulman's motion for relief from judgment because Shulman failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief based on his new evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); see also Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(2)).
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).
We lack jurisdiction to review Shulman's challenges to the district court's order granting Amazon's motion to dismiss because Shulman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on May 30, 2013. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); see also Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.