Patsy Sakuma v. Assoc. of Apt. Owners of the Tropics at Waikele

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 15, 2023·No. 22-16929·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATSY N. SAKUMA, an individual, No. 22-16929

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKW- KJM v.

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT MEMORANDUM* OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

and 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

* 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). abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sakuma’s motion

for relief from judgment because Sakuma failed to establish any basis for such

relief. See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443-44 (9th Cir.

2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary

circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” (citation, internal

quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); id. at 444-446 (discussing the factors for

determining whether a change in law qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b)(6));

Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992)

(discussing grounds for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sakuma’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

Sakuma’s motions at Docket Entries Nos. 24 and 27 are granted to the extent

she seeks to file the reply briefs submitted on July 10, 2023. The Clerk will file the

reply briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 26.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16929

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATSY N. SAKUMA, an individual, No. 22-16929

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKW- KJM v.

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT MEMORANDUM* OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

and 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

* 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). abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sakuma’s motion

for relief from judgment because Sakuma failed to establish any basis for such

relief. See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443-44 (9th Cir.

2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary

circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” (citation, internal

quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); id. at 444-446 (discussing the factors for

determining whether a change in law qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b)(6));

Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992)

(discussing grounds for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sakuma’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

Sakuma’s motions at Docket Entries Nos. 24 and 27 are granted to the extent

she seeks to file the reply briefs submitted on July 10, 2023. The Clerk will file the

reply briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 26.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16929

Patsy Sakuma v. Assoc. of Apt. Owners of the Tropics at Waikele, (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Patsy Sakuma v. Assoc. of Apt. Owners of the Tropics at Waikele (Patsy Sakuma v. Assoc. of Apt. Owners of the Tropics at Waikele) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jerry L. Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company

972 F.2d 1038 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

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)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Melissia Henson v. Fidelity National Financial

943 F.3d 434 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)