RODERIC MALCOLM SCHMIDT v. MARTIN SCHMIDT (2016)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

RODERIC MALCOLM SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees, MARTIN A. SCHMIDT, Successor Trustee, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-17653

Decided: October 05, 2016

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Roderic Malcolm Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reopen his diversity action following the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to reopen the case because plaintiff failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (listing grounds warranting relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's order denying plaintiff's renewed motion to reopen the case because plaintiff's amended notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law