Michael A. Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation; Arm, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTEL CORPORATION; ARM, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EVANGELINA ALMIRANTERENA; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 21-16108
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01279-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
* 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16108
his post-judgment motion in his action alleging claims arising from a previous qui
tam action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion a denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Valdivia
v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bruzzone’s Rule
60(b) motion because Bruzzone presented no basis for post-judgment relief. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093
(9th Cir. 2003) (relief under Rule 60(b) is not warranted unless the moving party
can show: (i) “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of Rule 60(b); (ii)
that, with the exercise of due diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; and
(iii) that earlier production of which would have likely changed the disposition of
the case).
We reject as meritless Bruzzone’s contentions that the district court was
biased against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --