United States v. 2020-09-15 | 19-56187 | ARTEM KOSHKALDA V. SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEM KOSHKALDA, individually and
as sole Shareholder and Transferee of ART,
LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN,

Trustee.

No. 19-56187

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05087-FMO-
AGR

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*
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

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-56187
Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motions to set aside his voluntary dismissal of this action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
ruling on motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Valdivia
v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koshkalda’s Rule
60(b) motions to set aside the bankruptcy trustee’s voluntary dismissal of this
action because Koshkalda presented no basis for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th
Cir. 1993) (explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief has been used “sparingly” and
requires “extraordinary circumstances”).
We do not consider Koshkalda’s contentions challenging rulings in his
bankruptcy case because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.