RAJESH VARMA V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, No. 19-56336 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJESH VARMA; MAHIMA VARMA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-56336 D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01038-JGB-SP MEMORANDUM* NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Rajesh Varma and Mahima Varma appeal pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an * 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). abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ postjudgment motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the underlying judgment because plaintiffs failed to file a timely 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 of judgment). Because plaintiffs’ motions for relief under Rule 60 were filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, they did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). AFFIRMED. 2 19-56336
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.
