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:T4d7,MEMORANDUM Dennis Obado appeals from a district court order denying his motion to be reinstated as a class member after he had previously opted out. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 1. While there may be circumstances where equity requires a district court to allow a person to rejoin a class after opting out, this is not such a case. Obado’s motion to rejoin the class was filed more than nine months after the opt-out deadline and more than two months after the second claims deadline. His excuse for that late filing—that he never received the January 13 claims notice—was contradicted by the claims administrator’s representations that the notice was mailed to Obado’s address and not returned as undelivérable. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion in denying Oba-do’s motion. 2. Obado’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. Such a claim does not exist in the civil context. Even if it did exist, it would lack merithere. Class counsel did not represent Oba-do during the relevant proceedings. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T509,

MEMORANDUM

Dennis Obado appeals from a district court order denying his motion to be reinstated as a class member after he had previously opted out. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. While there may be circumstances where equity requires a district court to allow a person to rejoin a class after opting out, this is not such a case. Obado’s motion to rejoin the class was filed more than nine months after the opt-out deadline and more than two months after the second claims deadline. His excuse for that late filing—that he never received the January 13 claims notice—was contradicted by the claims administrator’s representations that the notice was mailed to Obado’s address and not returned as undelivérable. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion in denying Oba-do’s motion.

2. Obado’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. Such a claim does not exist in the civil context. Even if it did exist, it would lack merithere. Class counsel did not represent Oba-do during the relevant proceedings.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.