Court Opinion

ID: 9366038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:09.027558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.981432
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT RIDLEY,                                  No.    21-56007

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07783-PSG-SS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.; TRANSUNION CORP.; DOES, 1
through 5,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Robert Ridley appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

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

      *
             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
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of discretion. Riley v. Filson, 933 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ridley’s motion,

which was filed more than fourteen months after the order dismissing his action,

because it was not filed within a reasonable time. See Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d

972, 979 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth the requirements for a Rule 60(b)(6) motion,

including that the motion must be filed “within a reasonable time”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   21-56007