Ross Massbaum; Florina Massbaum v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Erroneously Sued As Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSS MASSBAUM; FLORINA
MASSBAUM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Erroneously Sued As Internal Revenue
Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56262
D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00650-DOC-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ross and Florina Massbaum appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their action seeking repayment of
funds paid to the Internal Revenue Service in relation to a dispute over their tax
* 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).
FILED
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56262
liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In their opening brief, the Massbaums fail to address the basis for the district
court’s dismissal of their action. As a result, they have waived any challenges to
the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed
waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a
claim . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --