Case Name: Robert H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-07
Citations: 658 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 15-35762
Parties: Robert H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
Robert H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-35762
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 7, 2016
Robert H. Grundstein, Esquire, Pro Se.
David Hugh Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Garvey Schubert Barer, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, Grand-stein’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert H. Grundstein appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in his action alleging federal and state law claims involving a trust. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grundsteiris Rule 60(b) motion because Grundstein failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief from the district court's judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (no abuse of discretion in denial of plaintiffs' Rule 60 motion where the motion "offered no basis for withdrawal of the [challenged] order").
We do not consider Grundsteiris contentions as to the district court's May 1, 2015 order. See Grundstein v. Grundstein, No. 15-35436 (9th Cir., Sept. 16, 2015) (dismissing appeal from May 1, 2015 order as untimely and explaining that Grundsteiris current appeal "will be limited to review of the July 17,2015 order").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.