Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 2021

Docket19-35953

StatusUnpublished

This text of Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC (Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, 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

Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, (9th Cir. 2021).

Pincite

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

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 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

Related

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)

Thayer C. Lindauer and Helen Lindauer, Husband and Wife v. Thomas M. Rogers

91 F.3d 1355 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Terry Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-steiner-v-asset-acceptance-llc-ca9-2021.