Uop
Warwick v. University of the Pacific
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Joanne Warwick, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s order denying her motion opposing costs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Warwick’s Rule 60(b) motion because Warwick failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. See Casey, 362 F.3d at 1260 (discussing Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); see also Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892 , 899 (9th Cir.2001) (no abuse of discretion by denying Rule 60(b) motion where movants merely reiterated arguments raised previously). We reject Warwick’s contention that the district court should have held a hearing on the motion.
We do not consider issues and arguments incorporated by reference on appeal'. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).