Case Name: OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anshu PATHAK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-16
Citations: 154 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 04-56890
Parties: OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anshu PATHAK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anshu PATHAK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-56890.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided Nov. 16, 2005.
Craig A. Huber, Esq., Freund & Brackey LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Anshu Pathak, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anshu Pathak appeals pro se from the district court's default judgment against him, for failure to comply with a contempt order, in a trademark action brought by Omaha Steaks International, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction against Pathak, which Pathak ignored. The district court then found Pathak in contempt and awarded monetary sanctions. Pathak neither paid the sanctions nor adhered to the injunction. The district court placed Pathak in default as a further contempt sanction and subsequently entered a default judgment against Pathak. Pathak timely appealed.
Pathak's opening brief and reply brief failed to raise any contentions relating to the district court's contempt order or entry of default judgment. "The Court of Appeals will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief." Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir.1986). Pathak therefore waived his opportunity to challenge the district court's decisions and we decline to consider his contentions. See id.
Pathak's motion to amend the opening brief, construed as a request for judicial notice, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.