22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T507,MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs are investors, and them decedents, who allegedly were duped into purchasing worthless bonds from Defendant Stefan Misiraca. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant CB Richard Ellis (“CBRE”) and denied Plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the judgment. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm. We need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion, because any error was harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 (“At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights.”). Plaintiffs’ sole request was to have time to depose Misiraca before responding to CBRE’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs now have deposed Misiraca, but they have not identified any triable issue of fact created by the deposition. On this record, there is insufficient evidence that Misiraca’s alleged fraud was within the scope of his employment with CBRE to withstand summary judgment. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T534,

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs are investors, and them decedents, who allegedly were duped into purchasing worthless bonds from Defendant Stefan Misiraca. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant CB Richard Ellis (“CBRE”) and denied Plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the judgment. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.

We need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion, because any error was harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 (“At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights.”). Plaintiffs’ sole request was to have time to depose Misiraca before responding to CBRE’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs now have deposed Misiraca, but they have not identified any triable issue of fact created by the deposition. On this record, there is insufficient evidence that Misiraca’s alleged fraud was within the scope of his employment with CBRE to withstand summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.