Indiezone, Inc. v. Joe Rogness

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDIEZONE, INC., No. 21-15344
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC
CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS
RICHARD DOLLINGER, MEMORANDUM*
Appellants,
and
EOBUY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE ROGNESS; TODD ROOKE,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PHIL HAZEL; et al.,
Defendants.
INDIEZONE, INC., No. 21-16338
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04280-VC
CONOR FENNELLY; DOUGLAS
RICHARD DOLLINGER,
Appellants,
and
EOBUY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE ROGNESS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: GRABER, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Indiezone, Inc., Conor Fennelly and Douglas Richard Dollinger
appeal from the district court’s post-judgment orders denying their motions for an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal and to reopen their case. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 21-15344 & 21-16338
Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019) (denial of a
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th
Cir. 2004) (en banc) (denial of an extension of time to file a notice of appeal). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion
for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because appellants failed to
demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) (the
district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good
cause or excusable neglect); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858-60 (discussing excusable
neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion
under Rule 60(b)(6) because appellants failed to demonstrate a change in the
controlling law that would justify reopening the final judgment. See Henson, 943
F.3d at 443-44 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must
show extraordinary circumstance justifying the reopening of a final judgment[.]”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the district
court’s November 23, 2020 order denying appellants’ motions to recuse and for
relief from judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in civil cases a notice of
3 21-15344 & 21-16338
appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of the judgment); United States
v. Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189, 191 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal
is a jurisdictional requirement).
We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contentions that they
were denied due process by the district court and that the district court was biased
against them.
AFFIRMED.
4 21-15344 & 21-16338