FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAN-TAY CROSS, No. 10-56431
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03398-AG-E
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED AIRLINES, a corporation, doing
business in California; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Chan-Tay Cross (“Cross”) appeals from the district court’s order denying
her motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). We review such an order for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s
Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if
it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous
finding of material fact.” Id. Applying this standard, we affirm.
1. We have adopted a four-factor equitable analysis “to determine whether
neglect is ‘excusable’ under Rule 60(b)(1).” Bateman v. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d
1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.
Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in applying this equitable analysis and determining that the neglect of
Cross’s counsel was not excusable. The reasons given by Cross’s counsel were no
different than circumstances faced by many lawyers who meet applicable deadlines
or timely seek continuances, and, in any event, the unfortunate events do not
account for the nearly one-year delay in filing the Rule 60(b) motion.
2. Cross also argued for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which authorizes the
court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason that justifies
relief.” To merit relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate
“extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute
2
[his case].” Comm’y Dental Svcs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court correctly applied
this standard and held that Cross had not made the required showing.
AFFIRMED.
3