Opinion
22-55078
11-25-2022
YESENIA DEL TORO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 360 PARTNERSHIP LP; HAIRAPETAIN PROPERTIES, INC.; VICTOR HAIRAPENTIAN; ALBERT HAIRAPENTIAN; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO.; FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING, LLC; JOSE BUENO; TAMMY ROSSUM, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01216-JAK-JPR John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Yesenia Del Toro appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the court's judgment dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising out of her home's foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Del Toro's Rule 60(b) motion because Del Toro presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the "moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence" that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not "discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that to prevail under Rule 60(b)(1), the moving party must show that the district court committed a specific error)
We reject as meritless Del Toro's contentions the district court erred by allowing defendants to not strictly observe local meet and confer rules and by dismissing her action without leave to amend. See All. of Nonprofits for Ins., Risk Retention Grp. v. Kipper, 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding departures from local rules warrant reversal only if they affect "substantial rights"); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
Del Toro's request to strike the answering brief, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).