
    Michael SAHAKIAN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF GLENDALE, a political subdivision of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-56227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 20, 2010.
    Michael Sahakian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Nathalie Sahakian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Karineh Savadian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Ann Marie Maurer, Senior Assistant City, Glendale City Attorney’s Office, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Sahakian, Nathalie Sahakian, and Karineh Savadian appeal pro se from a jury verdict in them 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest, excessive 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 general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     