NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, No. 15-35762
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEON GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Robert H. Grundstein appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in his
action alleging federal and state law claims involving a trust. We have jurisdiction
*
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). Thus, Grundstein’s request
for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ahanchian v.
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grundstein’s Rule
60(b) motion because Grundstein failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief from
the district court’s judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const.
Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (no abuse of discretion in denial of
plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion where the motion “offered no basis for withdrawal of
the [challenged] order”).
We do not consider Grundstein’s contentions as to the district court’s May 1,
2015 order. See Grundstein v. Grundstein, No. 15-35436 (9th Cir., Sept. 16, 2015)
(dismissing appeal from May 1, 2015 order as untimely and explaining that
Grundstein’s current appeal “will be limited to review of the July 17, 2015 order”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35762