Case Name: Kelly RANDLE; Fred Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LNV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-03
Citations: 679 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 15-56097
Parties: Kelly RANDLE; Fred Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LNV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 679
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Kelly RANDLE; Fred Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LNV CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56097
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed March 3, 2017
Kelly Randle, Pro Se
Fred Mitchell, Pro Se
Lindsey Kress, Regina J. McClendon, Attorneys, Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Kelly Randle and Fred Mitchell appeal pro se from the district court's order denying their motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied plaintiffs' motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) because plaintiffs failed to show grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, LNV waived defects in service and consented to the district court's jurisdiction by removing this action to the district court. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Jurisdiction attaches if a defendant makes a voluntary general appearance, as by filing an answer through an attorney." (citations omitted)). Judicial estoppel did not apply because LNV's position taken earlier in litigation that service was not properly effected and its later decision to waive proper service by making a general appearance are not inconsistent. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position.").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.