RICHARD GOODIN V. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURA, No. 14-17226 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 21 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD B. GOODIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 14-17226 D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-DAEBMK v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing without prejudice his diversity action, and his motion for reconsideration of that denial. We review for an abuse * 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). of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60(b)). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodin’s motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment or his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion because Goodin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)). We do not consider Goodin’s contentions regarding his prior appeal. See Goodin v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 370 F. App’x 789 (9th Cir. 2010). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-17226

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.