Nadeem Ahmad v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 584 F. App'x 440 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 1 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NADEEM AHMAD,                                    No. 11-18047
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-
    DAD
    v.
    WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al.,                    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 22, 2014**
    Before:        GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Nadeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
    motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action arising from foreclosure
    proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an
    abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac.
    Enters., 
    5 F.3d 391
    , 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad’s motion
    for reconsideration because Ahmad failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
    E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local
    rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 
    5 F.3d at 1263
     (setting forth
    grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We reject Ahmad’s
    arguments concerning the merits of his claim.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad’s motion to
    reopen the time to appeal the judgment. See Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc., 
    316 F.3d 1066
    , 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and
    explaining that district court has discretion to deny motion to reopen the time to
    appeal the judgment even when Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)’s requirements are met).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      11-18047
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-18047

Citation Numbers: 584 F. App'x 440

Judges: Callahan, Canby, Goodwin

Filed Date: 8/1/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023