Paul M. Lucore v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the Lmt 2006-9 Trust;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL M. LUCORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee
for the Certificate Holders of the Lmt 2006-9
Trust; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
No. 20-56056
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02382-L-MDD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
* 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
APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-56056
Paul M. Lucore appeals from the district court’s order denying his second
motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
In his opening brief, Lucore fails to challenge the district court’s order
denying his second motion for reconsideration, and he has therefore waived any
such challenge. 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.”);
see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
We do not consider Lucore’s contentions regarding the merits of the district
court’s order dismissing his action or the district court’s order denying his first
motion for reconsideration, because Lucore filed the notice of appeal on October 9,
2020, more than 30 days after the entry of the district court’s order denying his
first motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal
must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s
Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of
appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d
1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera
Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (filing of the second motion for

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-56056
reconsideration does not toll the time to appeal the underlying judgment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --