TWO TEN, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and CHRISTINE A. PETRIKAS v. DANNY ENEVOLDSON and EUGENE ENEVOLDSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TWO TEN, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company and CHRISTINE A.
PETRIKAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DANNY ENEVOLDSON and EUGENE
ENEVOLDSON,
Defendants,
and
CELLXION, LLC, a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-56365
D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01446-CJC-
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
FILED
NOV 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Two Ten, LLC, and Christine Petrikas appeal the district court’s
denial of their May 29, 2012 motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). The district court denied Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion, in part,
because Appellants failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay:
“[Appellants’] proffered reason for failing to receive notice of the Court’s April 30,
2012 minute order is not credible in light of the Court’s record showing that
[Appellants] received proper notice, . . . and the fact that [Appellants’] counsel did
not have any apparent difficulty in receiving any of the other email notifications
from the Pacer system.” Placing great weight on that factor was not “illogical,
implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in
the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en
banc). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Bateman v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Lemoge v. United
States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Because the standard under Rule
60(b) is an equitable standard it may follow that in some circumstances a district
court may satisfy the standard even though omitting to discuss some specified
factor.” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --