Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard B. GOODIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-17226
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September IB, 2016 
    
    Filed September 21, 2016
    Richard B. Goodin, Pro Se.
    Regan M. Iwao, Scott Keala Daezoo Shishido, Attorney, Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing without prejudice his diversity action, and his motion for reconsideration of that denial. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodin’s motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment or his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion because Goodin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).

We do not consider Goodin’s contentions regarding his prior appeal. See Goodin v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 370 Fed-Appx. 789 (9th Cir. 2010).

All pending motions are denied.

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