Michael Sattari v. British Airways World Cargo; Forward Air, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 SATTARI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRITISH AIRWAYS WORLD CARGO;
FORWARD AIR, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17372
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01484-LDG-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sattari appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his action alleging damage to personal property that was shipped from Tehran, Iran
to Las Vegas, Nevada. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
MAR 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17372 2
de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sattari failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he provided timely written
notice as required by the Warsaw Convention. See Stud v. Trans Int’l Airlines, 727
F.2d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 1984) (timely written notice of complaint is “a prerequisite
to recovery for any damage to goods” under Article 26 of the Warsaw
Convention).
Sattari’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
We grant British Airways World Cargo’s unopposed motion to strike new
evidence submitted with Sattari’s opening brief. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of
Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Papers not filed with the district court
or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot
be part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --