Michael Sahakian; v. City of Glendale, a political subdivison of the State of California;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SAHAKIAN; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GLENDALE, a political
subdivison of the State of California; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56227
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-07419-FMO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 29, 2010***
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sahakian, Nathalie Sahakian, and Karineh Savadian appeal pro se
from a jury verdict in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest, excessive
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-56227 2
force, and other claims arising from their arrest for obstructing and delaying police
officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a decision on a motion for a new trial. Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608,
611 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for a new trial because plaintiffs set forth no basis warranting a reversal of the jury
verdict. See Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1270 (9th Cir.
2000) (setting forth criteria for reversal on the ground of attorney misconduct);
Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 653 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing premature
deliberation by a juror).
Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments were not raised before the district court and
are waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 51; Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491
F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “a procedurally barred sufficiency
challenge is not subject to plain error review but is considered forfeited”); Zhang v.
Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding waiver
where appellants never objected to the jury instruction on the grounds raised on
appeal); see also Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56227 3
general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on
appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --