Richard Goodin v. Fidelity National Title Insura

Ninth Circuit

Richard Goodin v. Fidelity National Title Insura

669 F. App'x 360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 2016

Docket14-17226

StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 360 (Richard Goodin v. Fidelity National Title Insura) 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.

Bluebook

Richard Goodin v. Fidelity National Title Insura, 669 F. App'x 360 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing without prejudice his diversity action, and his motion for reconsideration of that denial. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodin’s motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment or his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion because Goodin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).

We do not consider Goodin’s contentions regarding his prior appeal. See Goodin v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 370 Fed-Appx. 789 (9th Cir. 2010).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing without prejudice his diversity action, and his motion for reconsideration of that denial. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodin’s motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment or his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion because Goodin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).

We do not consider Goodin’s contentions regarding his prior appeal. See Goodin v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 370 Fed-Appx. 789 (9th Cir. 2010).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

John Garamendi v. Jean-Francois Hennin

683 F.3d 1069 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-goodin-v-fidelity-national-title-insura-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack