Terry Steiner, a single woman and personal representative estate of David L Steiner v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY STEINER, a single woman and
personal representative estate of David L
Steiner,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-35953
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00271-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Terry Steiner appeals from the district court’s order denying her second
post-judgment motion in her action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. We have jurisdiction
* 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
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-35953
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steiner’s second
post-judgment motion for reconsideration and denying leave to amend because
Steiner failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Lindauer
v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nce judgment has been entered
in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment
is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --