Alvin E. Williams; Judith M. Brown-Williams v. Bentley Motors, Inc.; Rusnak Pasadena

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVIN E. WILLIAMS; JUDITH M.
BROWN-WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.; RUSNAK
PASADENA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56317
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05685-GW-JCG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams appeal pro se from the
district court’s order denying their post-judgment motion for reconsideration in
their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
JUL 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56317
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 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 by denying appellants’ fourth
motion for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such
relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)).
Appellants’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 23, and 24) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --