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 *680 will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.