NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS2 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

Appeal s from the United States D istrict Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 1 6 , 2023 * *

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

Appellants Indiezone, Inc., Conor Fennelly and Do uglas Richard Dollinger

appeal from the district court’s post

- judgment orders denying their motion s 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 fi le 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 ) )

.

W e lack jurisdiction to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the distri ct

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 of4 21

- 15344 & 21

- 16338

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

v. Vaccar o , 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’ contention s that they

wer e denied due process by the district court and that the district cour t was biased

against them.

AFFIRMED.