NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDIEZONE, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS 

RICHARD DOLLINGER, 

Appellants, 

and 

EOBUY, LIMITED, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOE ROGNESS; TODD ROOKE, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

PHIL HAZEL; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 21-15344 

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC 

MEMORANDUM*

INDIEZONE, INC., No. 21-16338 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-15344 & 21-16338

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS 

RICHARD DOLLINGER, 

Appellants, 

and 

EOBUY, LIMITED, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOE ROGNESS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: GRABER, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Appellants Indiezone, Inc., Conor Fennelly and Douglas Richard Dollinger

appeal from the district court’s post-judgment orders denying their motions for an 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal and to reopen their case. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. 

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
 3 21-15344 & 21-16338

Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019) (denial of a 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (en banc) (denial of an extension of time to file a notice of appeal). We 

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion 

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because appellants failed to 

demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) (the 

district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good 

cause or excusable neglect); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858-60 (discussing excusable 

neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a definite and firm 

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion 

under Rule 60(b)(6) because appellants failed to demonstrate a change in the 

controlling law that would justify reopening the final judgment. See Henson, 943 

F.3d at 443-44 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must 

show extraordinary circumstance justifying the reopening of a final judgment[.]” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the district 

court’s November 23, 2020 order denying appellants’ motions to recuse and for 

relief from judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in civil cases a notice of 
 4 21-15344 & 21-16338

appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of the judgment); United States 

v. Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189, 191 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal 

is a jurisdictional requirement).

We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contentions that they 

were denied due process by the district court and that the district court was biased 

against them. 

AFFIRMED.