Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alvin E. WILLIAMS; Judith M. Brown-Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.; Rusnak Pasadena, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56317
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 6, 2017
    Alvin E. Williams, Pro Se
    Judith M. Brown-Williams, Pro Se
    Sean P. Conboy, I, Esquire, Gonzalo C. Martinez, Attorney, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their post-judgment motion for reconsideration in their action alleging federal and state law claims. 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 appellants’ fourth motion for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

Appellants’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 23, and 24) are denied.

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