TATYANA DREVALEVA V. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, ET AL, No. 22-15547 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-15547 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-07414-LB MEMORANDUM* ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement; CATHERINE DALY; JOAN HEALY; BOBBIT SANTOS; ERIC ROOD, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 14, 2023*** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s postjudgment orders denying her motions for relief from judgment in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Drevaleva’s postjudgment motions because Drevaleva failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Sierra Pac., 862 F.3d at 1167-68 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(d)(3)); Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors warranting relief under Rule 60(a)). All pending motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 22-15547

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.