Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William L. MCVEIGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLIMATE CHANGERS, INC., DBA JW Brower Heating & Air Conditioning; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-35331
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 22, 2017
    William L. McVeigh, Pro Se
    Rod Stephens, Esquire, The Stephens Law Firm, Puyallup, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Climate Changers, Inc., Marlene Harnish
    
      Christie Fix, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, and Transportation Workers, Local 66
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William L. McVeigh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging employment-related claims. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McVeigh’s action because McVeigh failed to comply with the district court’s discovery orders, and he failed to appear for his deposition. See id. at 130-32 (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning McVeigh in the amount of attorney’s fees and costs “caused by [McVeigh’s] failure to obey a court order to provide or permit discovery.” Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1385-86 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and the expenses the district court may consider in awarding attorney’s fees under Rule 37(b)(2) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McVeigh’s motion for reconsideration because McVeigh failed to establish any basis for such relief. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (reconsideration will be “ordinarily den[ied] ... in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the district court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”).

We reject as without merit McVeigh’s contention that the district court was biased.

McVeigh’s motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.

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