Leo Kramer; Audrey E. Kramer v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.a.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEO KRAMER; AUDREY E. KRAMER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15095
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00001-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Leo and Audrey E. Kramer appeal pro se from the district court’s order
denying their motion for reconsideration in their action arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
* 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. The Kramers’ request for oral argument, set forth in their
briefs, is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15095
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kramers’
motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) because the motion was filed more
than one year after the entry of judgment and relied on evidence that was available
before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a motion
under Rule 60(b) to be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and
(3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kramers’
motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(d)(3) because the Kramers failed to
demonstrate any basis for relief. See United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d
415, 443-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party must establish fraud on the court by clear and
convincing evidence).
We reject as meritless the Kramers’ contentions that the district court was
required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law in its post-judgment order,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), or that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15095
921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Kramers’ motions for leave to file an oversized reply brief (Docket
Entry Nos. 37 and 40) are granted. The Clerk will file the reply brief submitted at
Docket Entry No. 38. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --