Robert Grundstein v. Robert Ferguson , 658 F. App'x 354 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 7 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire,                   No. 15-35762
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-RSL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LEON GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2016**
    Before:       LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Robert H. Grundstein appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
    his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in his
    action alleging federal and state law claims involving a trust. 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). Thus, Grundstein’s request
    for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion, Ahanchian v.
    Xenon Pictures, Inc., 
    624 F.3d 1253
    , 1258 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grundstein’s Rule
    60(b) motion because Grundstein failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief from
    the district court’s judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const.
    Corp., 
    248 F.3d 892
    , 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (no abuse of discretion in denial of
    plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion where the motion “offered no basis for withdrawal of
    the [challenged] order”).
    We do not consider Grundstein’s contentions as to the district court’s May 1,
    2015 order. See Grundstein v. Grundstein, No. 15-35436 (9th Cir., Sept. 16, 2015)
    (dismissing appeal from May 1, 2015 order as untimely and explaining that
    Grundstein’s current appeal “will be limited to review of the July 17, 2015 order”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      15-35762
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35762

Citation Numbers: 658 F. App'x 354

Filed Date: 11/7/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023