BAAH v. AT INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-01No. No. 20-55515

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Baah's motion for relief from judgment, finding no abuse of discretion, and declined to review other orders due to an untimely notice of appeal.

Alex Baah, representing himself, appealed a district court order that rejected his request to overturn a prior judgment in his employment case. The appellate court reviewed whether the lower court abused its authority in denying his motion for reconsideration. The court found that Baah had not presented any valid grounds for the relief he sought under the applicable rules of civil procedure.

The court also determined it could not review two other district court orders—one denying Baah's request to disqualify a judge and another denying reconsideration of that disqualification order—because Baah filed his notice of appeal too late. Under federal rules, parties must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of an order. Since Baah missed this deadline for those particular orders, the appellate court lacked authority to consider them.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration
Whether grounds for relief under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were demonstrated
Timeliness of notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed pro se from a district court order denying his post-judgment motion for relief in an employment action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Alex Baah appeals pro se from the district courts April 27, 2020 post-judgment order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Baah failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)-(d); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

We do not consider the district courts post-judgment orders (1) denying Baahs motion for disqualification and (2) denying reconsideration of the order denying disqualification, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from).

We do not consider Baahs contentions concerning his prior appeals, Nos. 16-56793 and 18-56358.

AFFIRMED.