Michael Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation
This text of Michael Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation (Michael Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, No. 21-16108
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01279-WHA
v. MEMORANDUM* INTEL CORPORATION; ARM, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EVANGELINA ALMIRANTERENA; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
* 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). his post-judgment motion in his action alleging claims arising from a previous qui
tam action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion a denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Valdivia
v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bruzzone’s Rule
60(b) motion because Bruzzone presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093
(9th Cir. 2003) (relief under Rule 60(b) is not warranted unless the moving party
can show: (i) “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of Rule 60(b); (ii)
that, with the exercise of due diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; and
(iii) that earlier production of which would have likely changed the disposition of
the case).
We reject as meritless Bruzzone’s contentions that the district court was
biased against him.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-16108
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-bruzzone-v-intel-corporation-ca9-2022.