Artem Koshkalda v. Seiko Epson Corporation ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 15 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ARTEM KOSHKALDA, individually and               No.    19-56187
    as sole Shareholder and Transferee of ART,
    LLC,                                            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05087-FMO-
    AGR
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    E. LYNN SCHOENMANN,
    Trustee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
    motions to set aside his voluntary dismissal of this action. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
    ruling on motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Valdivia
    v. Schwarzenegger, 
    599 F.3d 984
    , 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koshkalda’s Rule
    60(b) motions to set aside the bankruptcy trustee’s voluntary dismissal of this
    action because Koshkalda presented no basis for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
    60(b); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 
    984 F.2d 1047
    , 1049 (9th
    Cir. 1993) (explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief has been used “sparingly” and
    requires “extraordinary circumstances”).
    We do not consider Koshkalda’s contentions challenging rulings in his
    bankruptcy case because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      19-56187
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-56187

Filed Date: 9/15/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2020