Peng Chan v. Time Warner Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PENG CHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIME WARNER INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15412
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-06268-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Peng Chan appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in his action alleging federal
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
* 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
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15412
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chan’s Rule 59(e)
motion because it was untimely and Chan failed to set forth any basis for relief.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of
the judgment); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief
under Rule 59(e)).
We do not consider the district court’s order denying Chan’s motions for
recusal and reconsideration, and dismissing the action, because the order is outside
the scope of this appeal and the notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (required contents of notice of appeal), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (a Rule
59(e) motion extends the time to file an appeal if timely filed); Hamer v.
Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a time limit not
prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule and if properly
invoked, must be enforced); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir.
2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --