N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In the M atte r of: R OM AN C ATHOLIC AR C HB ISHOP OF POR TLAND IN OREGON, a s Suc c e ssors, a C orporation Sole , DB A Arc hdioc e se of Portla nd in Ore g on, FATHER M , Appe lla

nt, v. VAR IOUS TOR T C LAIM ANTS, Appe lle e . No. 13-36105 D.C . No. 6:09-c v-01396-AA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

6, 2016 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, B E A, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUL 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Fa the r M a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for re c o nside ra tion unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b)(6). This c ourt re vie ws de nia ls of m otions for re c onside ration for a n a buse of disc re tion. N

av ajo N ation v . C onfe de rate d Tribe

s & Bands of the

Yak ama Indian N

ation , 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th C ir. 2003). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d)(1) a nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm . To pre va i l on a

m otion for re c onside ration unde r R ule 60(b)(6) for “ any othe r re a son tha

t justifie s re lie f,” the m oving pa rty m ust de m onstra

te tha t

“ e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” e xist. Latshaw

v . Traine r

W ortham & C o. , 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th C ir. 2006). R ule 60(b)(6) is inte nde d to be “ use d spa ringly a s a n e quita ble re m e dy

to pre ve nt m anife st injustic e .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). Fa the r M ha s fa ile d to show tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in finding tha

t he did not de m onstra

te the “ e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s” ne c e ssa

ry to justify re l ie f. As the distric t c ourt pointe d out, Fa the r M doe s not e xpla in why the inform at ion a

bout his living situa

tion tha t is c onta ine d in thene wly subm itte d de c la ra tions c ould not ha

ve be e n ra ise d e arlie r. Se e id. (e xpla ining tha t a pa rty se e k ing re lie f be ars the burde n to “ d e m o nstra te both injury

and c irc um sta

nc e s be y ond his c o ntrol tha

t pre v e nte d him from

proc e e ding with . . . the

a c tion in a 2prope r fa shion” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita t ion om itte d)); se e also Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty . v . AC andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th C ir. 1993) (re a soning tha

t doc um e nts submitte d would not be c onside re d on a

m otion to se t a side the judgm e nt a

n d for re c onside ration be c a use the doc um e nts we re “ av a ila ble . . . from the be ginning of the

c a se ” ). M ore ove r, the re ha s not be e n a “ c l e ar an d a

uthorita tive c ha nge in the gove rning la

w” tha t would otherwise e xpla in tha t fa ilure . S

e e Phe lps v . Alame ida , 569 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

n d c ita tion om i tte d). The re le va

n t sta nda rd for good c a

use , whic h ba la

n c e s the priva

te and public inte re sts (inc luding thepublic inte re st in sa fe ty ), wa s the re le va nt sta n da rd throughout this litiga

t ion. Se e Fathe r M v . Various Tort C laimants ( In reRoman C atholic Arc hbishop of Portland in Or. ), 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th C ir. 2011) (a pply ing Phillips v. Ge n. Motors C orp. , 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th C ir. 2002)). That this c irc uit a

pplie d the fa c t-inte nsive good c a use sta nda rd to Fa the r M ’ s fa c ts in a way he did not e xpe c t doe s not re quire a distric t c ourt to gra nt a m otion for re c o nside ra tion. Furthe r, the distric t c o urt note d tha t Fathe r M ’ s c a s e wa s not simila r to pa st c a se s whe re c ourts gra

n t e d m otions for re c o nside ration unde r R ule 60(b)(6). While Fathe r M m ay

be c orre c t

tha t this re a son, a lone , would not ha ve be e n a 3suffic i e nt ba sis to de ny a m otion for re c onside ration, thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r m ake s c le ar that it wa s not sole ly re ly ing on this dete rm ination. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Fa the r M ’ s m otion for re c onside ration unde r R ule 60(b)(6). AFFIRM E D.

4