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:T51c,MEMORANDUM 1. Emil Cadkin brought his motion to set aside the award of attorneys’ fees long after the one-year period for filing such motions had expired. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (c). He may not circumvent the limitations period for motions alleging fraud by bringing his motion under the catchall provision in Rule 60(b)(6) instead. See Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2001). 2. Cadkin’s Rule 60(b) motion was long out of time, contained frivolous allegations of fraud on the court and impugned the integrity of opposing counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Carlin Production Music the attorneys’ fees it incurred opposing both the Rule 60(b) motion and the motion for reconsideration. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.1996). 3. The district court’s finding that Marty O’Toole proceeded in bad faith by making “repeated indefensible attacks on the fee award” was not clear error, nor was its order that O’Toole personally satisfy a portion of the attorneys’ fees an abuse of discretion. See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218-19 (9th Cir.2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54e,

MEMORANDUM

1. Emil Cadkin brought his motion to set aside the award of attorneys’ fees long after the one-year period for filing such motions had expired. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (c). He may not circumvent the limitations period for motions alleging fraud by bringing his motion under the catchall provision in Rule 60(b)(6) instead. See Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2001).

2. Cadkin’s Rule 60(b) motion was long out of time, contained frivolous allegations of fraud on the court and impugned the integrity of opposing counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Carlin Production Music the attorneys’ fees it incurred opposing both the Rule 60(b) motion and the motion for reconsideration. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.1996).

3. The district court’s finding that Marty O’Toole proceeded in bad faith by making “repeated indefensible attacks on the fee award” was not clear error, nor was its order that O’Toole personally satisfy a portion of the attorneys’ fees an abuse of discretion. See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218-19 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.