Case Name: Nira SCHWARTZ, d/b/a Jaffa Optronix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMHART GLASS MACHINERY (U.S.) INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 503
Docket Number: No. 07-55281
Parties: Nira SCHWARTZ, d/b/a Jaffa Optronix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMHART GLASS MACHINERY (U.S.) INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 503–503

Head Matter:
Nira SCHWARTZ, d/b/a Jaffa Optronix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMHART GLASS MACHINERY (U.S.) INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-55281.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007 .
Filed July 27, 2007.
Nira Schwartz, Torrance, CA, pro se.
Trenton J. Hill, Jones, Bell, Simpson & Abbott, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record and the responses to the court's May 11, 2007 order indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require farther argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees' application for renewal of judgment and denying appellant's motions to vacate both the original and renewed judgment. See Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004) (orders granting or denying motions to vacate judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion); In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.1999) (orders granting or denying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) motions reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.