William Robert Norrie v. BRAD KRASNOFF, Chapter 7 Trustee; MARK BLISS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRAD KRASNOFF, Chapter 7 Trustee;
MARK BLISS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56532
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02163-DSF
MEMORANDUM*
In re: WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE,
Debtor.
______________________________
WILLIAM ROBERT NORRIE,
Appellant,
v.
BRAD KRASNOFF, Chapter 7 Trustee;
MARK BLISS,
Appellees.
No. 18-56324
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02163-DSF
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-56532
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, chapter 7 debtor William Robert Norrie
appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions for relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions
regarding reconsideration. United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208,
1214 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Norrie’s
“Request For Relief Under F.R.Civ.P 60,” received by the district court on
September 14, 2017, because the motion was filed more than 14 days after entry of
the district court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of
jurisdiction Norrie’s “Motion To Request Relief Under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) From
The Court’s Order denying Motion For Reconsideration Dated November 29,
2017,” filed on August 8, 2018. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459
U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-56532
of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and
divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in
the appeal.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Norrie’s arguments concerning the district
court’s September 22, 2016 order, because Norrie failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or motion for rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (time to file notice of
appeal); Fed. R. App. P. 6(b) (Rule 4(a)(1) applies to an appeal from final
judgment of district court acting in appellate jurisdiction; timely motion for
rehearing tolls the time to file an appeal); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214
(2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement).
We do not consider Norrie’s contentions concerning issues in his other
appeals.
Appellee Mark Bliss’s motion to file a corrected brief (Docket Entry No. 37
in No. 17-56532 and Docket Entry No. 17 in No. 18-56324) is granted. The Clerk
shall file the answering brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 36 in No. 17-56532
and at Docket Entry No. 16 in No. 18-56324.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --