NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL GONZALEZ, Nos. 21-15696 22-15523 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02448-TLN-KJN v.

DEPARTMENT (BUREAU) OF REAL MEMORANDUM*

ESTATE, A California State Agency; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, LLC; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Daniel Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal and state law claims

arising from the 2010 revocation of his real estate license. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Rio Props., Inc. v.

Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gonzalez’s action

because Gonzalez failed to comply with the district’s orders to appear for and

participate in his deposition, and the district court found that his behavior was

willful and in bad faith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); In re Phenylpropanolamine

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1233 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 37

sanctions, including dismissal, may be imposed where the violation is due to

willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” (citation, emphasis, and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1022 (discussing five

factors courts must weigh in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to

comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s post-

judgment motion because Gonzalez failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

2 21-15696 We do not consider Gonzalez’s remaining contentions, including his

arguments regarding the merits of his claims, because they are outside the scope of

these appeals.

Gonzalez’s motions for an extension of time to file the reply brief are

denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-15696