Josip Dvornekovic; Eileen Dvornekovic v. William A. Looney;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSIP DVORNEKOVIC; EILEEN
DVORNEKOVIC,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WILLIAM A. LOONEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35245
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05812-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Josip and Eileen Dvornekovic appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging wrongful foreclosure and federal and
state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
FILED
MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of the Dvornekovics’s motion for
relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah
Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate
the judgment, because the Dvornekovics failed to demonstrate that such relief was
warranted. See id. at 1263 (listing grounds upon which a party can seek relief from
a judgment).
We lack jurisdiction to address the challenges to the judgment, because the
Dvornekovics failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment
tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed
within 30 days of final judgment); see also Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,
954 F.2d 1441, 1462 (9th Cir. 1992) (an untimely post-judgment motion typically
does not toll the time to file an appeal of the underlying judgment).
We reject the Dvornekovics’s contentions that the district court was biased,
violated their due process rights, and became a party to the allegedly unlawful acts.
All pending motions and requests are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35245

-- 2 of 2 --