Fredric Sanai V.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Fredric Sanai seeks reversal of the district court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline, following his unanimous disbarment by the Washington Supreme Court. We affirm.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 , 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Final judgment was entered in Sanai’s case on July 30, 2013. His notice of appeal was filed January 16, 2014. Moreover, Sa-nai’s Rule 59 motion, filed September 5, 2013, was filed “later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b),(e). On this basis, some of our precedent holds that the district court was “without jurisdiction to consider” the untimely Rule 59 motion, Tillman v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Ewa Apartments, 234 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), despite the district court’s attempt to toll “the 28-day filing period mandated by FRCP 59(e) ... for 9 days.”
Developments since Tillman suggest that the district court may have had the ability to toll the deadline for filing a Rule 59 motion because Rule 59 is a court-promulgated rule untethered to a statutory timeline. See Bowles, 551 U.S.…