Case Name: Brad GREENSPAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-17
Citations: 696 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 16-15908
Parties: Brad GREENSPAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Brad GREENSPAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15908
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 17, 2017
Jared Peterson, Attorney, Law Office of Jared Peterson, Oceanside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Kurt Alan Kappes, Attorney, Greenberg Traurig, P.A, Sacramento, CA, James Ian Serota, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee IAC/In-terActiveCorp
Lee H. Rubin, Donald Manwell Falk, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Google, Inc.
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Brad Greenspan appeals from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute Greenspan's putative shareholder class action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Greenspan failed to challenge the district court's dismissal of his action or any other district court order, and therefore Greenspan waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[AJrguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); Greenwood v. F.A.A., 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.... ").
Greenspan's notice of appeal challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") May 2, 2016 Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, which was filed in the district court, should have been filed in this court. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f) (providing that certain determinations of whistleblower awards "may be appealed to the appropriate court of appeals of the United States not more than 30 days after the determination is issued by the Commission"). We construe Greenspan's notice of appeal as a petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(4). In the interests of justice, we transfer Greenspan's petition for review to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1989) (setting forth conditions for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631); see also Baeta v. Sonchik, 273 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[Bjecause the purpose of the transfer statute is to aid litigants who were confused about the proper forum for review, a petition that would be time-barred without a transfer satisfies the interest of justice test." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Clerk shall file Greenspan's notice of appeal (District Court Docket Entry No. 104) as a petition for review of the SEC's May 2, 2016 order and open a new case in this court.
Greenspan's motion to certify questions of law to the Delaware Supreme Court (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.