Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY STEINER, a single woman and No. 19-35953
personal representative estate of David L
Steiner, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00271-RSM
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Terry Steiner appeals from the district court’s order denying her second
post-judgment motion in her action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steiner’s second
post-judgment motion for reconsideration and denying leave to amend because
Steiner failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Lindauer
v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nce judgment has been entered
in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment
is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-35953