Aulmann

MEMORANDUM *

In December of 1999, Aulmann asked the district court to revisit its March 16, 1998 judgment under Rule 60(b) and under its “inherent equitable power” for fraud on the court. The district court denied her motion and she appeals. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review both the district court’s denial of Aulmann’s rule 60(b) motion and her fraud on the court motion for an abuse of discretion. See De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874 , 880 (9th Cir.2000).

Aulmann’s Rule 60(b) motion was properly denied by the district court because it was time-barred. A motion brought under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) must be brought “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Fed.R.CivJP. 60(b). Aulmann never specifically stated which provision of Rule 60(b) she was relying on. Since her arguments go to fraud, we assume that she meant to invoke Rule 60(b)(3). Since her Rule 60(b) motion was filed more than one year after the dismissal order was entered, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it correctly concluded that her Rule 60(b)…