Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola v. Apple Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 23-3086
D.C. No. 5:23-cv-03462-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) in his
federal and state law employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. United States
* 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
APR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-3086
v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jaiyeola’s Rule
60(b)(3) motion because Jaiyeola failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief.
See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail
under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing
evidence” that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other
misconduct that was not “discoverable by due diligence before or during the
proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 62.1(a)(2) (providing that the district court may deny a timely filed motion for
leave for relief, even if motion is filed after notice of appeal).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --