Me Lee v. Kyung H. Choi;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ME LEE,
Plaintiff-counter-claimant -
Appellant,
v.
KYUNG H. CHOI; et al.,
Defendants,
SOO BIUN, an individual; et al.,
Counter-defendants,
SAM LEE,
Counter-defendant,
and
MIKYUNG JAIME KIM, AKA Kathleen
Kim; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
No. 09-55000
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07026-FMC-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument, and therefore deny Appellee LVN Corporation’s request.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
09-55000 2
NETBANK FBS,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee,
LNV Corporation, as Receiver of Netbank,
FBS,
Successor-in-interest-
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Me Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to
reconsider the dismissal of her claims against the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-55000 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lee’s motion to
reconsider because she did not advance any viable ground for relief under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Central District of California’s Local
Rules. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for reconsideration under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60); C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (setting forth requirements for
reconsideration).
Lee’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Lee’s supplemental brief received on November 2,
because Lee did not file a motion to file a supplemental brief.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --