ROBERT GRUNDSTEIN V. ROBERT FERGUSON, No. 15-35762 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 7 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35762 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-RSL MEMORANDUM* LEON GRUNDSTEIN, DBA Gencare, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Robert H. Grundstein appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in his action alleging federal and state law claims involving a trust. We have jurisdiction * 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). Thus, Grundstein’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grundstein’s Rule 60(b) motion because Grundstein failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief from the district court’s judgment. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (no abuse of discretion in denial of plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion where the motion “offered no basis for withdrawal of the [challenged] order”). We do not consider Grundstein’s contentions as to the district court’s May 1, 2015 order. See Grundstein v. Grundstein, No. 15-35436 (9th Cir., Sept. 16, 2015) (dismissing appeal from May 1, 2015 order as untimely and explaining that Grundstein’s current appeal “will be limited to review of the July 17, 2015 order”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-35762

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.