In re: SOLEDAD M. SOLANO v. United States Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SOLEDAD M. SOLANO,
Debtor.
______________________________
SOLEDAD M. SOLANO,
Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE,
Appellee.
No. 23-55040
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-04684-CJC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2024**
Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Soledad M. Solano appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
* 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
FEB 5 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the bankruptcy court’s denial of her motion for relief from judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1),
and we affirm.
1. On appeal, Solano raises five issues. Solano contends that the “main
issue” is whether the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to deny
her motion for an order to show cause, which was the judgment from which she
sought relief under Rule 60(b). The remaining issues concern whether the
bankruptcy court could deny Solano’s motion for an order to show cause when she
had not properly served the IRS or the United States and they never appeared in
court. Solano concedes that she is making these arguments “for the first time on
appeal.”
“A party normally may not press an argument on appeal that it failed to raise
in the district court.” One Indus., LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d 1154,
1158 (9th Cir. 2009). However, subject-matter jurisdiction “can never be forfeited
or waived” “because it involves a court’s power to hear a case.” Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citation omitted). We “have an independent
obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” Id. But Solano
does not actually challenge the bankruptcy court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over
the case. Rather, her dispute centers on service of process, which “is properly
regarded as a matter discrete from a court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a controversy

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of a particular kind.” Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 671 (1996).
Because this issue does not concern the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and was
not raised below, we decline to consider it. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d
1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases).
2. Although Solano originally appealed from the bankruptcy court’s
order denying her Rule 60(b) motion, in her opening brief she does not challenge
any portion of that order or the district court’s affirmance of that order. Therefore,
any arguments relating to those orders are “deemed abandoned.” Wilcox v.
Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --