Leo Kramer v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank Na

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2021
• Docket: 20-15095
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEO KRAMER; AUDREY E. KRAMER, No. 20-15095

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00001-MMD- WGC v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Leo and Audrey E. Kramer appeal pro se from the district court’s order

denying their motion for reconsideration in their action arising from foreclosure

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

abuse of discretion a denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

* 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. The Kramers’ request for oral argument, set forth in their briefs, is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kramers’

motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) because the motion was filed more

than one year after the entry of judgment and relied on evidence that was available

before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a motion

under Rule 60(b) to be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and

(3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)

(setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kramers’

motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(d)(3) because the Kramers failed to

demonstrate any basis for relief. See United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d

415, 443-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party must establish fraud on the court by clear and

convincing evidence).

We reject as meritless the Kramers’ contentions that the district court was

required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law in its post-judgment order,

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), or that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias,

2 20-15095 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Kramers’ motions for leave to file an oversized reply brief (Docket

Entry Nos. 37 and 40) are granted. The Clerk will file the reply brief submitted at

Docket Entry No. 38. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-15095