Ramnik Trivedi v. United States ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMNIK TRIVEDI, No. 10-55750
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01885-DDP-
FFM
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramnik Trivedi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging wrongful tax collection by the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Trivedi’s request for oral
argument is denied.
grant of summary judgment. Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108,
1112 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for
relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518,
523 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Trivedi
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the IRS’s collection
actions were timely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a) (collection action must commence
within ten years).
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trivedi’s Rule 60(b)
motion on the ground that Trivedi’s neglect in failing to oppose the motion for
summary judgment based on his misunderstanding of the local rules was not
excusable. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.
380, 392 (1993); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se
litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
Trivedi failed to establish any other ground warranting relief from judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55750