Gardner

Gardner v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Good Law
70 F. App'x 472
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 25, 2003Nos. 02-55896, 02-56122; D.C. No. CV-00-00364-VAPCalifornia241 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

James H. Gardner appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and the district court’s order denying his motions to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion. Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664 , 666 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardner’s motion for relief from judgment because “attorney error is insufficient grounds for relief under both Rule 60(b)(1) and (6).” See id. at 666-67.

*473 Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because Gardner failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that defendants committed fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that prevented him from opposing summary judgment. See De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir.2000).

We decline to consider the district court’s denial of Gardner’s motions to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, because Gardner does not challenge these rulings in his opening…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.