Yesenia Del Toro v. 360 Partnership Lp

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YESENIA DEL TORO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
360 PARTNERSHIP LP; HAIRAPETAIN
PROPERTIES, INC.; VICTOR
HAIRAPENTIAN; ALBERT
HAIRAPENTIAN; FIRST AMERICAN
TITLE INSURANCE CO.; FIRST
AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING, LLC;
JOSE BUENO; TAMMY ROSSUM,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55078
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01216-JAK-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Yesenia Del Toro appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
* 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).
FILED
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-55078
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising out of
her home’s foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th
Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Del Toro’s Rule
60(b) motion because Del Toro presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir.
2004) (stating that 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));
Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that to prevail under
Rule 60(b)(1), the moving party must show that the district court committed a
specific error)
We reject as meritless Del Toro’s contentions the district court erred by
allowing defendants to not strictly observe local meet and confer rules and by
dismissing her action without leave to amend. See All. of Nonprofits for Ins., Risk
Retention Grp. v. Kipper, 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding departures
from local rules warrant reversal only if they affect “substantial rights”); Cervantes

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-55078
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining
that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
Del Toro’s request to strike the answering brief, set forth in the reply brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --