DAVID DEJEU V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF, No. 13-36109 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID J. DEJEU, No. 13-36109 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05401-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. David J. Dejeu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside the judgment dismissing his action alleging claims related to Washington state’s registration requirements for contractors. 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 the district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dejeu’s Rule 60(b) motion because Dejeu failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment). To the extent that Dejeu attempts to challenge the district court’s underlying judgment of dismissal, we lack jurisdiction because Dejeu did not timely file a notice of appeal as to the underlying judgment, or a post-judgment motion that tolled the time to file a notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended where party timely files an enumerated tolling motion); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). AFFIRMED. 2 13-36109

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.