HAMILTON v. EXECUTIVE PROCESS LLC (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Bennie Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from an independent contractor agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's application of its local rules. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Hamilton's summary judgment response as untimely under its local rules. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (deadline for opposition papers), 7-12 (failure to file required documents); Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules”).

To the extent that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting the second amended complaint as untimely, any error was harmless. See Cooper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1991) (if any error is harmless, it does not require reversal).

We reject as without merit Hamilton's contentions concerning electronic service, the rejection of discovery-related motions, and alleged procedural defects with defendants’ summary judgment motion.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.