Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Patrick Brady against the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration after the court granted summary judgment in favor of Hanger Orthopedic, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, focusing on procedural issues related to the waiver of arguments. Brady, for the first time on appeal, argued that the district court improperly credited Hanger's claim regarding the lack of expert witness disclosure on causation. This argument was deemed waived because it was not raised in the district court. Additionally, Brady's assertion of 'excusable neglect' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) was also waived, as it was not included in his reconsideration motion. The court found no abuse of discretion by the district court, given Brady's failure to oppose the summary judgment motion or seek an extension. Brady's attempt to raise the 'excusable neglect' standard under Rule 6(b) on appeal was similarly waived. The appellate court confirmed that the district court's rulings fell within its discretionary authority, and the decision was upheld, with the judgment not suitable for publication or precedent per Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Authority of District Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's discretionary authority in denying Brady's motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion given Brady's failure to file an opposition or seek an extension.
Reasoning: The court finds that Brady did not demonstrate abuse of discretion since he failed to explain why he did not file an opposition to Hanger's summary judgment motion or seek an extension.
Excusable Neglect Standard under Rule 6(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Although Brady attempted to invoke the 'excusable neglect' standard under Rule 6(b) on appeal, the court considered this issue waived due to its absence in lower court proceedings.
Reasoning: Brady attempts to invoke the 'excusable neglect' standard under Rule 6(b) on appeal, but this issue is also waived for the same reason.
Excusable Neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Brady's failure to mention 'excusable neglect' in his reconsideration motion resulted in the waiver of this argument on appeal. The appellate court upheld the district court's discretion in denying relief due to Brady's lack of explanation for not opposing the summary judgment motion.
Reasoning: Brady also claims the district court abused its discretion by not recognizing 'excusable neglect' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). However, he did not mention Rule 60 or the 'excusable neglect' argument in his reconsideration motion, leading to a waiver of this issue as well.
Waiver of Arguments Not Raised in Lower Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that arguments not presented at the district court level, such as Brady's claim regarding the lack of an expert witness disclosure, are considered waived and cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal.
Reasoning: This argument is deemed waived as it was not raised in the district court.