Tatyana Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No.                      22-15547
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-07414-LB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM;
    DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
    RELATIONS, Division of Labor Standards
    Enforcement; CATHERINE DALY; JOAN
    HEALY; BOBBIT SANTOS; ERIC ROOD,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
    Submitted March 14, 2023***
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s post-
    judgment orders denying her motions for relief from judgment in her employment
    action. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
    discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 
    683 F.3d 1069
    , 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    ,
    1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus.,
    Inc., 
    862 F.3d 1157
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Drevaleva’s post-
    judgment motions because Drevaleva failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
    See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 
    5 F.3d at 1262-63
     (grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see
    also Sierra Pac., 
    862 F.3d at 1167-68
     (grounds for relief under Rule 60(d)(3));
    Garamendi, 
    683 F.3d at 1077-80
     (9th Cir. 2012) (factors warranting relief under
    Rule 60(a)).
    All pending motions are denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   22-15547