Case Name: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy MONIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 16-17350
Parties: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy MONIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. '
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy MONIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-17350
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 20, 2017
Adrian Lyle Lavarías, Esquire, Attorney, Crystal Rose, Bays Lung Rose & Holma, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Stacy Moniz, Pro Se
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. '
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Stacy Moniz appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in JPMorgan Chase's diversity action alleging a breach of contract claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1265, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse, its discretion in denying Moniz's motion for reconsideration because Moniz failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting JPMorgan Chase's Rule 60(a) motion and amending the judgment to clarify that its dismissal of JPMor-gan Chase's action was without prejudice because the amended judgment reflects the original intent of the court. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and noting that "Rule 60(a) allows a court to clarify a judgment in order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.