NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHERIE PHILLIPS, No. 15-15251
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-02620-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HSL PROPERTIES INCORPORATED;
HSL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, doing
business as Canyon Oaks Apartment
Homes,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cherie Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
granting defendants’ motion to strike Phillips’s response to their motion for
attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to strike documents under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870,
872 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking portions of
Phillips’s response to defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees because the stricken
statements were harassing and unnecessary to a determination of attorney’s fees.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). Contrary to Phillips’s contention, the district court
retained jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and related
matters. See Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983)
(the district court retains jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after the decision on
the merits had been filed).
To the extent that Phillips is attempting to appeal the dismissal of her action,
we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue because Phillips failed to file a timely
notice of appeal from the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in a civil case,
the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or
order appealed from); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007) (“This Court
has long held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory
and jurisdictional.” (citation omitted)).
We reject as without merit Phillips’s contention that the district court was
biased.
2 15-15251
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ request, set forth in the answering brief, to strike Phillips’s
opening brief for noncompliance with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a), is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15251