Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRY STEINER, a single woman and No. 19-35953 personal representative estate of David L Steiner, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00271-RSM

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Terry Steiner appeals from the district court’s order denying her second post-judgment motion in her action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. We have jurisdiction

*

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).

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). 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 by denying Steiner’s second post-judgment motion for reconsideration and denying leave to amend because Steiner failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nce judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-35953