Court Opinion

ID: 9381002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:47.688413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.981072
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No.                      22-15547

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-07414-LB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM;
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement; CATHERINE DALY; JOAN
HEALY; BOBBIT SANTOS; ERIC ROOD,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                  Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted March 14, 2023***

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s post-

judgment orders denying her motions for relief from judgment in her employment

action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus.,

Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Drevaleva’s post-

judgment motions because Drevaleva failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see

also Sierra Pac., 862 F.3d at 1167-68 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(d)(3));

Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors warranting relief under

Rule 60(a)).

      All pending motions are denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-15547