Opinion ID: 3051154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005). “A district court abuses its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). We also review the denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for abuse of discretion. Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004). “Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determine whether there are any 1440 IN RE: SYNCOR ERISA LITIGATION genuine issues of material fact for trial. Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005).