Adina Zaharescu v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Adina Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to vacate the judgment dismissing her action alleging state and federal violations in connection with foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaharescu’s motion to the extent it sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), because the motion was filed more than one year after entry of judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989) (“A motion for relief from judgment based on [Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) ] shall be made not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Zaharescu’s contention, the district court did not err in construing her motion, in part, as requesting relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), because the motion expressly cited Rule 60(b)(3) as one ground for relief.