NADEEM AHMAD V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 11-18047 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 1 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NADEEM AHMAD, No. 11-18047 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01200-JAMDAD v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Nadeem Ahmad appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 * 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). F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad s motion for reconsideration because Ahmad failed to establish grounds for such relief. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We reject Ahmad s arguments concerning the merits of his claim. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ahmad s motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment. See Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc., 316 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court has discretion to deny motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment even when Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) s requirements are met). AFFIRMED. 2 11-18047

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.