Case ID: f-appx_659/html/0436-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roderic Malcolm SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Martin A. Schmidt, Successor Trustee, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-17653
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 5, 2016
    Roderic Malcolm Schmidt, Pro Se
    Michael William Davidson, Attorney, Law Division of NRT Inc., Western Region, San Ramon, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Elizabeth Gianola, Horan Lloyd, Car-mel, CA, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appel-lee
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roderic Malcolm Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his diversity action following the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse , of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to reopen the case because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (listing grounds warranting relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying plaintiffs renewed motion to reopen the case because plaintiffs amended notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.