NICK MILETAK V. AT&T SERVICES, INC., No. 19-15276 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICK MILETAK, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15276 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05326-EMC MEMORANDUM* AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Nick Miletak appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion in his diversity action alleging employment-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d * 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). Appellant’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miletak’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion because Miletak failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting such relief. See id. at 1102-04 (explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief may be granted “only where extraordinary circumstances” are present and that parties should be bound by the deliberate actions of themselves and their chosen counsel, even intentional attorney misconduct (citations and quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Miletak seeks to challenge the district court’s July 2, 2015 order, we do not consider his contentions because the notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. (4)(a)(4)(A)(vi) (a motion under Rule 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 19-15276

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.