N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TER R A NC E WALKER , e x re l. Unite d State s, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. INTELLI-HEAR T SER

VIC ES, INC .; DANNY W EISB UR G; VANNESSA PAR SONS; DANIEL L. GER M AIN, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-15291 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-00132-M M D-C LB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 26, 2023 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 26 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Te rranc e W a lke r a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 60(b)(6) m otion for re lie f from the judgm e n t in this a c t ion. 1 W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re t ion, 2 and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt re a sona bly de te rm ine d

tha t no e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s justifie d re ope ning thejudgm e nt. Se e He nson , 943 F.3d a t 443–44. Even

if Spirtos v . Ye me nidjian , 499 P.3d 611, 614 (Nev. 2021), worke d som e c ha nge in Ne va da ’ s a

nti-SLAPP 3 jurisprude nc e , it wa s not with re spe c t to “ ‘ an issue dispositive

to the o utc om e of the c a s e ’ ” at ha n d. Martine

z v . Shinn , 33 F.4th 1254, 1263 (9th C ir. 2022); s e e By noev . Bac a , 966 F.3d 972, 983 (9th C ir. 2020). First, Spirtos pla inly

did not disturb Ne

va d a la w re ga rding the gist of thec la im
. S pirtos , 499 P.3d a

t 616; se e also Abrams v . Sanson , 458 P.3d 1062, 1068–69 (Ne v. 2020). Se c ond, nothing in S

p irtos c ha

nge d the fa c t tha

t c e rta in of W a lke r’ s a lle gat ions
we re irre le va

nt to his c la im s , pa

rtic ula rly in light of the c onc lusions re a c he d in the unde rly ing judgm e nt. S

e e Spirtos , 499 P.3d a

t 616. Third, Spirtos did not c ha nge

1 To the e xte n t tha

t W a l ke r atte m

p ts to a p pe a l issue s not a

rising from the distric t c o urt’ s disposition of his R u le 60(b)(6) m o tion, we dism i ss the a ppe a l. Se e Harman v . Harpe r , 7 F.3d 1455, 1457–58 (9th C ir. 1993).

2 Se e He nson v . Fide l ity

N at’l Fin., Inc

. , 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th C i r. 2019); Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ). 3 Strate gic La

wsuit Aga inst Public Partic ipat ion, Ne v. R e v. Stat. §§ 41.635–41.670. 2(and c ould not ha v e c ha nge d) this c ourt’ s inte rpre tation or a pplic ation of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure to a nti-SLAPP m otions in fe de ra l c ourt. Se e C ore C iv ic , Inc . v . C andide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136, 1143 (9th C i r. 2022). B e c a use S pirtos did not c ha

nge the la w gove rning the judgm e nt, the distric t c ourt did not ne e d to e xplic itly

e xam i ne the Phe lps v . Alame ida , 569 F.3d 1120, 1135–40 (9th C ir. 2009), fa c tors in its order de ny ing W a lke r’ s m otion. S e e Mitc he ll v

. Unite d State s , 958 F.3d 775, 790–91 (9th C ir. 2020); se e also He n son , 943 F.3d a t 444. The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in sta

ting tha t it would

“ not e nte rta in a

ny furthe r filings in this c l ose d c a s e .” Se e Re ady Transp., Inc . v . AAR Mfg., Inc

. , 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th C ir. 2010). Theorde r doe s not pre ve nt future filings a

nd wa s a re a s ona ble re sponse to W a lke r’ s c opious a nd burde n som e
m otion pra c tic e , pa

rtic ula rly whe n the m atte r wa s c lose d. Se e D ie tz v
. Bouldin , 579 U.S. 40, 45–46, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892, 195 L. Ed. 2d 161 (2016). AFFIRM E D . All pe nding m otions a re DE NIE D
.

3