MICHAEL BRUZZONE V. INTEL CORPORATION, No. 21-16108 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16108 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01279-WHA MEMORANDUM* INTEL CORPORATION; ARM, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and EVANGELINA ALMIRANTERENA; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying * 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). his post-judgment motion in his action alleging claims arising from a previous qui tam action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bruzzone’s Rule 60(b) motion because Bruzzone presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (relief under Rule 60(b) is not warranted unless the moving party can show: (i) “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of Rule 60(b); (ii) that, with the exercise of due diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; and (iii) that earlier production of which would have likely changed the disposition of the case). We reject as meritless Bruzzone’s contentions that the district court was biased against him. AFFIRMED. 2 21-16108

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.