VARMA v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-23No. No. 19-56336

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion where the appellants failed to demonstrate grounds for relief and did not timely appeal the underlying judgment.

Rajesh and Mahima Varma appealed the district court's denial of their motion for reconsideration in a foreclosure-related diversity case. The appellants argued their motion should reopen consideration of the underlying judgment dismissing their action. The court found the district court properly denied the reconsideration motion because the Varmas did not establish any valid legal basis for relief, specifically failing to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements required under the applicable rule.

The court also noted a procedural defect that prevented it from considering the Varmas' arguments about the original judgment itself. Because the Varmas did not file a timely notice of appeal within the required period, the court lacked authority to review the merits of the underlying dismissal order. The late filing of their reconsideration motions did not extend the deadline for appealing the original judgment.

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

Key issues

Standards for granting post-judgment motions for reconsideration
Timeliness of notice of appeal in federal court
Whether reconsideration motions toll the appeal deadline

Procedural posture

The Varmas appealed a district court order denying their post-judgment motion for reconsideration of a judgment dismissing their diversity foreclosure action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rajesh Varma and Mahima Varma appeal pro se from the district courts post-judgment order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the district courts judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. 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 plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Casey v. Albertsons Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the underlying judgment because plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment). Because plaintiffs’ motions for relief under Rule 60 were filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, they did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).

AFFIRMED.