FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ULRICH RISCHER, an individual, No. 08-56712
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CV 96-03886-SJO-RNB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BANLAVOURA I, INC., a California
corporation; BANLAVOURA I, INC.
TRUST, a California trust; ENGLEWOOD
I, INC., a California corporation;
ENGLEWOOD I, INC. TRUST, a
California trust; LARRY ESACOVE, an
individual; and AIDA ESACOVE, an
individual,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Defendants Banlavoura I, Inc. Trust; Englewood I, Inc. Trust; Banlavoura I,
Inc.; Englewood I, Inc.; Larry Esacove; and Aida Esacove appeal the denial of
their motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying their motion to
set aside an assignment of judgment and to vacate a renewal of the judgment. We
review for abuse of discretion. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d
1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendants’
motion for reconsideration. There were no new material facts or changes of law
since the time of the district court’s original order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
(providing that motions for reconsideration are allowed due to "newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial"; fraud; or "any other reason that justifies relief"); C.D. Cal.
R. 7-18 (providing that a motion for reconsideration may be made only on the
grounds of, among other things, the emergence of new material facts or a change of
law). Defendants assert that the handwriting analysis produced after the district
court’s original order is a new fact, but they are mistaken. Evidence is not new
when the facts on which it is based had been in the moving party’s possession
since the start of the litigation. Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833
F.2d 208, 210 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
2
3