Mirchandani

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HARESH MIRCHANDANI and Case No. 3:17-cv-02090-BTM-BGS

INDRA MIRCHANDANI,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

Plaintiffs, RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. 15 BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., [ECF No. [#20] successor to M&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK, Defendant. 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 20.) Notably, this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 16, 2018 based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not appeal such dismissal. Because Plaintiff’s instant motion fails to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from pursuing an appeal of such dismissal, he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 448 F.2d 729,…