Rajesh Varma; Mahima Varma v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJESH VARMA; MAHIMA VARMA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-56336
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01038-JGB-SP
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-56336
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’ post-
judgment 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 of 2 --