NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUNE KRAFT, Relator; et al., No. 18-55594
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04479-JFW-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rune Kraft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
qui tam action alleging violations of the Federal and California False Claims Acts.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
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).
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
Kraft fails to challenge the district court’s bases for dismissal, and he has
therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,
350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were
not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d
971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant[.]”). We reject as unsupported by the record Kraft’s contentions
regarding procedural due process violations by the district court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Kraft’s February
28, 2018 motion and striking Kraft’s April 9, 2018 motion for violating local rules.
See C.D. Cal. R. 6-1, 7-3, 16-12(c); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th
Cir. 2007) (this court gives “[b]road deference” to a district court’s application of
its local rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with
prejudice and without leave to amend because Kraft has not identified any
amendment that would create a viable claim. See Okwu v. McKim, 682 F.3d 841,
844, 846 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and concluding no abuse
of discretion if plaintiff failed to identify any amendment that would create a viable
claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kraft’s challenge to the district court’s
2 18-55594
denial of Kraft’s April 27, 2018 motion because Kraft failed to file a new or
amended notice of appeal after the district court denied the motion. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 n.1 (9th Cir.
2017).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) and motion to
supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 19) are granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55594