JACOB WINDING, DBA Top to Bottom Cleaning Service v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a National Association;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACOB WINDING, DBA Top to Bottom
Cleaning Service,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a National
Association; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17331
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00555-AWI-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellee Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (“Cal-
Western”) filed a notice of stay of proceedings due to the automatic stay imposed
by 11 U.S.C. § 362 in Case No. 13-10551 in the United States Bankruptcy Court
* 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-17331
for the District of Delaware. On April 25, 2017, the bankruptcy court closed Case
No. 13-10551. Because the automatic stay has terminated, appellate proceedings
as to Cal-Western shall proceed. The Clerk shall serve a courtesy copy of this
memorandum disposition on Jane M. Leamy, Office of the U.S. Trustee, 844 King
Street, Suite 2207, Wilmington, DE 19801.
Jacob Winding appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
in his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Winding fails to present any argument regarding the
denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion or the grant of
attorney’s fees. Winding has therefore waived his challenge as to these issues. 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, and a bare assertion does not preserve a
claim . . . .”).
To the extent Winding challenges the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s
requests for judicial notice in connection with the motion for attorney’s fees, the
district court did not abuse its discretion because all of the judicially noticed
documents were matters of public record or otherwise “not subject to reasonable

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-17331
dispute.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of court
filings and other matters of public record); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s judgment because the
notice of appeal was untimely as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)
(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order
appealed from); 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.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. (4)(A)(vi) (a motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal if the motion is filed no
later than 28 days after judgment is entered).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --