Summary
A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's denial of the appellants' motion to vacate judgment. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 60(b) because the appellants failed to establish any basis for relief. The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion because Appellants failed to establish any basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellants' motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (2)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)(followed)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…