Home/Ninth Circuit/Fidel Pajarillo v. Rick Yarnall

Fidel Pajarillo v. Rick Yarnall

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 21, 2022·No. 21-16708·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: FIDEL H. PAJARILLO, No. 21-16708

Debtor, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02106-GMN ______________________________

FIDEL H. PAJARILLO, MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

RICK A. YARNALL, Ch. 13 Trustee; U.S. BANK,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 13 debtor Fidel H. Pajarillo appeals pro se from the district court’s

* 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). order denying his motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in

his appeal of his bankruptcy action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599

F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pajarillo’s Rule

60(b) motion because Pajarillo presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60).

We reject as without merit Pajarillo’s accusations of misconduct by the

district judge.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-16708

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fidel Pajarillo v. Rick Yarnall, (9th Cir. 2022).

Fidel Pajarillo v. Rick Yarnall (Fidel Pajarillo v. Rick Yarnall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger
599 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)