Court Opinion

ID: 9396733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 17:00:50.835116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.126225
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDIEZONE, INC.,                                No. 21-15344

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS
RICHARD DOLLINGER,                              MEMORANDUM*

                Appellants,

and

EOBUY, LIMITED,

                Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE ROGNESS; TODD ROOKE,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

PHIL HAZEL; et al.,

                Defendants.

INDIEZONE, INC.,                                No. 21-16338

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC

CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS
RICHARD DOLLINGER,

                Appellants,

and

EOBUY, LIMITED,

                Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE ROGNESS; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:     GRABER, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Appellants Indiezone, Inc., Conor Fennelly and Douglas Richard Dollinger

appeal from the district court’s post-judgment orders denying their motions for an

extension of time to file a notice of appeal and to reopen their case. We have

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

      **
             The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

                                         2                          21-15344 & 21-16338
Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019) (denial of a

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th

Cir. 2004) (en banc) (denial of an extension of time to file a notice of appeal). We

affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because appellants failed to

demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) (the

district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good

cause or excusable neglect); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858-60 (discussing excusable

neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a definite and firm

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion

under Rule 60(b)(6) because appellants failed to demonstrate a change in the

controlling law that would justify reopening the final judgment. See Henson, 943

F.3d at 443-44 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must

show extraordinary circumstance justifying the reopening of a final judgment[.]”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the district

court’s November 23, 2020 order denying appellants’ motions to recuse and for

relief from judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in civil cases a notice of

                                          3                           21-15344 & 21-16338
appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of the judgment); United States

v. Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189, 191 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal

is a jurisdictional requirement).

      We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contentions that they

were denied due process by the district court and that the district court was biased

against them.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          4                          21-15344 & 21-16338