Court Opinion

ID: 9889535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 17:01:58.014692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:41.678783
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WASTE ACTION PROJECT,                           No.    22-35967

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01184-RSM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BUCKLEY RECYCLE CENTER INC; et
al.,

                Defendants-Appellants,

and

JEFFREY SPENCER,

                Defendant,

 v.

COUNTY OF KING,

                Movant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Washington
                   Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted October 3, 2023**

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,*** District
Judge.

      Defendants-Appellants Buckley Recycle Center, Inc., Ronald Shear, and

Ronda Sterley (collectively, Defendants) appeal (1) the district court’s October

2022 order denying Defendants’ motion to modify the consent decree entered in

this case, as well as (2) the November 2022 order denying Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration. Notwithstanding Defendants’ arguments aimed at the district

court’s December 2020 order granting Plaintiff-Appellee Waste Action Project’s

motion to modify the consent decree, Defendants never appealed that order, and it

is therefore not subject to our review. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d

434, 444 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting that “an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion brings up for review only the denial of that motion, but not the underlying

judgment”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount

them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling.

      1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’

motion to modify the consent decree. Hook v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 107 F.3d 1397,

1402 (9th Cir. 1997). It reasonably concluded that Defendants’ reasons for the

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

                                          2
proposed modifications, including their own role in causing permitting delays, did

not constitute a “significant change in circumstances” justifying revision of the

decree, or “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). NLRB v. Int’l Ass’n of Ironworkers Union, Loc.

433, 891 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2018); Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1262

(9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 584 (2023). Moreover, Defendants failed

to show why the 18-24 month break they sought was “suitably tailored to resolve

the [alleged] problems created by” any supposed change in conditions. United

States v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2005).

      2. Defendants’ argument as to the district court’s denial of their motion for

reconsideration is premised on their contention that the district court erroneously

denied the motion to modify the consent decree. Because the district court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Defendants’ motion to modify, and because

Defendants did not present “new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to [the district court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence,” the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for

reconsideration. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. Rule 7(h)(1); see Guenther v. Lockheed

Martin Corp., 972 F.3d 1043, 1058 (9th Cir. 2020).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3