In Re: Coeptis Equity Fund LLC v. Janina Hoskins

facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling. We affirm.

We review denial of a Rule 9024 motion for abuse of discretion. In re Gilman,

887 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). Coeptis invokes Rule 60(b)(6), which is

incorporated in Rule 9024. A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must

“demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond [its] control that prevented [it]

from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion.”

Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). Those

circumstances must be “extraordinary.” Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards

Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). Parties “may not use Rule

60(b) as an alternative to an appeal to obtain a reconsideration of the merits and

declare the original judgment void.” In re Atkins, 134 B.R. 936, 938–39 (9th Cir.

BAP 1992).

1 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 expressly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to bankruptcy cases.

2 Coeptis does not identify any extraordinary circumstances beyond its control that

prevented it from proceeding with the appeal in the ordinary course. Rather,…