PENG CHAN V. TIME WARNER INC., No. 18-15412 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PENG CHAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15412 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-06268-EJD v. MEMORANDUM* TIME WARNER INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Peng Chan appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 * 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). F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chan’s Rule 59(e) motion because it was untimely and Chan failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)). We do not consider the district court’s order denying Chan’s motions for recusal and reconsideration, and dismissing the action, because the order is outside the scope of this appeal and the notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (required contents of notice of appeal), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (a Rule 59(e) motion extends the time to file an appeal if timely filed); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a time limit not prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule and if properly invoked, must be enforced); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-15412
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.
