RANDALL PITTMAN V. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, No. 11-55967 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 06 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RANDALL PITTMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, No. 11-55967 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-05225-ABCAJW Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS DIAGNOSTICS, a California Corporation; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside the judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction * 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). his employment class action lawsuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pittman’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion because Pittman failed to establish extraordinary circumstances. See Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010) (a party must bring a Rule 60(b)(6) motion within a reasonable time and demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances”); id. (to constitute extraordinary circumstances, attorney must engage in “neglect so gross that it is inexcusable”). We lack jurisdiction to review Pittman’s challenges to the district court’s judgment because Pittman did not file a timely notice of appeal or post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). The parties’ motions to take judicial notice, filed on June 27, 2014, and July 2 11-55967 2, 2014, are denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 3 11-55967

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.