Scotia Group Mgt. LLC; Greens at Ventana v. June E. Willems

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTIA GROUP MGT. LLC; GREENS
AT VENTANA,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
JUNE E. WILLEMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-16901
D.C. No. 2:04-sc-01414-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
June E. Willems appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
motion for reconsideration of its judgment dismissing her putative qui tam action.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16901 2
discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willems’s motion
for reconsideration because Willems failed to establish grounds for relief under
either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing factors to consider
for reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) and 60(b)).
Willems’ waived her due process claim by raising it for the first time on
appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam),
and her arguments regarding service of process and subject matter jurisdiction are
not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --