Alvin Williams v. Bentley Motors, Inc. , 693 F. App'x 614 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVIN E. WILLIAMS; JUDITH M. No. 16-56317
BROWN-WILLIAMS,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05685-GW-JCG
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.; RUSNAK
PASADENA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams appeal pro se from the
district court’s order denying their post-judgment motion for reconsideration in
their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 by denying appellants’ fourth
motion for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such
relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)).
Appellants’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 23, and 24) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56317