Adina Zaharescu v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADINA ZAHARESCU, an individual, No. 13-56005
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00428-CJC-AN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee for Asset-Backed
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-
FR1; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Adina Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to vacate the judgment
*
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).
dismissing her action alleging state and federal violations in connection with
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d
415, 443 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaharescu’s motion
to the extent it sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), because the motion
was filed more than one year after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1);
Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A motion for relief
from judgment based on [Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3)] shall be made not more than
one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Zaharescu’s contention, the
district court did not err in construing her motion, in part, as requesting relief under
Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), because the motion expressly cited Rule 60(b)(3) as one
ground for relief.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under
Rule 60(b)(6) because Zaharescu failed to demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances. See Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996,
1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate
2 13-56005
the judgment based on Zaharescu’s allegations of fraud on the court because she
failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a grave miscarriage of justice
harming the integrity of the judicial process. See Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d at
444-45 (setting forth test for assessing a request for relief from judgment based on
alleged fraud on the court).
We reject Zaharescu’s contention that the district court violated due process
by ruling on her motion without oral argument.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Zaharescu’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 5, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56005