Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district court's post-judgment orders denying their motions to alter or amend the judgment and to reconsider the dismissal of their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. 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 the Johnsons’ motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (b)(4) and (b)(6) because the Johnsons failed to establish any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (party may be relieved from judgment due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263; United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (“Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” (citations omitted) ); Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(6) is used “sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Johnsons’ motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because the motion was untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). To the extent the motion also sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion because the Johnsons failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: No. 17-56722
Decided: December 03, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)