Court Opinion

ID: 9910498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:47.765806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:07.103943
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATSY N. SAKUMA, an individual,                 No. 22-16929

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKW-
                                                KJM
 v.

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT                        MEMORANDUM*
OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT
WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by
its board of directors; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                 Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

and 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

      *
             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).
abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sakuma’s motion

for relief from judgment because Sakuma failed to establish any basis for such

relief. See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443-44 (9th Cir.

2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary

circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” (citation, internal

quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); id. at 444-446 (discussing the factors for

determining whether a change in law qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b)(6));

Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992)

(discussing grounds for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Sakuma’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

      Sakuma’s motions at Docket Entries Nos. 24 and 27 are granted to the extent

she seeks to file the reply briefs submitted on July 10, 2023. The Clerk will file the

reply briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 26.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       22-16929