Rivera v. the Disney Co.

Full title: Ivonne RIVERA, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. THE DISNEY COMPANY, aka Disney…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 20, 2002

31 F. App'x 400 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

31 Fed.Appx. 400 (9th Cir. 2002) Ivonne RIVERA, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. THE DISNEY COMPANY, aka Disney World Services; et al., Defendants--Appellees. No. 00-57199. D.C. No. CV-99-13350-ABC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 20, 2002

Submitted February 11, 2002 ^*.

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding.

Before B. FLETCHER, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Ivonne Rivera appeals the district court's order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing her action against The Disney Company for wrongful termination, sex discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to address Rivera's contentions regarding the merits of the

Page 401.

district court's original entry of judgment, because Rivera both failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post-judgment tolling motion.

"An untimely motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)." Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992). Denial of such a motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). Because Rivera failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly-discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to reconsider. See id. at 1262-63.

AFFIRMED.