Rust v. Sonora Quest Laboratories LLC

Ninth Circuit

Rust v. Sonora Quest Laboratories LLC

127 F. App'x 341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2005

DocketNo. 04-15518

StatusPublished

This text of 127 F. App'x 341 (Rust v. Sonora Quest Laboratories LLC) 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

Rust v. Sonora Quest Laboratories LLC, 127 F. App'x 341 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jan C. Rust appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her third Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa, 103 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rust’s motion for relief from judgment because it merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and did not satisfy any of the grounds for relief articulated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 363.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jan C. Rust appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her third Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa, 103 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rust’s motion for relief from judgment because it merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and did not satisfy any of the grounds for relief articulated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 363.

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

Pasatiempo v. Aizawa

103 F.3d 796 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F. App'x 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rust-v-sonora-quest-laboratories-llc-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack