STEPHEN BENNETT V. OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES GROUP/, No. 12-35246 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 23 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN ROSS BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-35246 D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06129-AA v. MEMORANDUM * OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES GROUP/COMPANY/ORGANIZATION, OMSG, OMSC, OMSO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2013 ** Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Stephen Ross Bennett appeals pro se from the district court s orders denying his motions for reconsideration of the district court s judgment dismissing Bennett s diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett s motions for reconsideration because Bennett failed to establish grounds for relief under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) and 60(b)). Because Bennett did not timely appeal from the district court s judgment, the merits of the underlying judgment are not before the court. See Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991). We deny Bennett s motion for leave to enter new evidence, attached to the end of his opening brief, and his motion for summary affirmance, filed on August 13, 2012. AFFIRMED. 2 12-35246

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.