
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Robb Evans & Associates LLC, Receiver-Appellee, v. Paul Jeffrey LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant, Lucaslawcenter “Incorporated”, a corporation, DBA Lucas Law Center; et al., Defendants, and Electronic Cash Systems, Inc., Creditor.
    No. 10-56985.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    Michael Daniel Bergman, Esquire, John F. Daly, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, FTC-Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, James E. Elliott, James E. Hunnicutt, Esquire, Federal Trade Commission, Dallas, TX, John D. Jacobs, Federal Trade Commission, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Allen C. Ostergar, III, Ostergar Law Group P.C., Mission Viejo, CA, for Creditor.
    Paul Jeffrey Lucas, Aliso Viejo, CA, pro se.
    Richard C. Gilbert, Gilbert & Marlowe, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants.
    Gary Owen Caris, Esquire, Lesley Anne Hawes, Esquire, McKenna Long & Al-dridge LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Receiver-Appellee.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Jeffrey Lucas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in its action alleging that Lucas and other defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) of the FTC Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 954 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the FTC’s claim that Lucas violated § 45(a) by falsely promising customers a full refund if he failed to obtain a mortgage loan modification for them, because Lucas faded to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he made material representations and whether they were likely to secure and mislead customers. See id. at 950 (an act or practice is deceptive if there is a material representation that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances); see also FTC v. Cyberspace.Com, LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir.2006) (“A misleading impression created by a solicitation is material if it involves information that is important to consumers and, hence, likely to affect their choice of, or conduct regarding, a product.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas’s motion for reconsideration because Lucas failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting in part the Receiver’s motion to wind up the estate, including approving the Receiver’s Final Report and Accounting. See SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir.1986) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decisions involving its supervision of an equitable receivership).

Lucas’s contentions concerning his remaining post-judgment motions, his allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court, and alleged misconduct by the FTC, the State Bar of California, and the Better Business Bureau are unpersuasive.

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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     