ARTEM KOSHKALDA V. SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, No. 19-56187 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTEM KOSHKALDA, individually and as sole Shareholder and Transferee of ART, LLC, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-56187 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05087-FMOAGR Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and E. LYNN SCHOENMANN, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. * 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). Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions to set aside his voluntary dismissal of this action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s ruling on motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koshkalda’s Rule 60(b) motions to set aside the bankruptcy trustee’s voluntary dismissal of this action because Koshkalda presented no basis for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief has been used “sparingly” and requires “extraordinary circumstances”). We do not consider Koshkalda’s contentions challenging rulings in his bankruptcy case because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or 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 19-56187

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.