Waste Action Project v. Buckley Recycle Center Inc;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WASTE ACTION PROJECT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BUCKLEY RECYCLE CENTER INC; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
JEFFREY SPENCER,
Defendant,
v.
COUNTY OF KING,
Movant.
No. 22-35967
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01184-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 3, 2023**
* 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
FILED
OCT 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Seattle, Washington
Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,*** District
Judge.
Defendants-Appellants Buckley Recycle Center, Inc., Ronald Shear, and
Ronda Sterley (collectively, Defendants) appeal (1) the district court’s October
2022 order denying Defendants’ motion to modify the consent decree entered in
this case, as well as (2) the November 2022 order denying Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration. Notwithstanding Defendants’ arguments aimed at the district
court’s December 2020 order granting Plaintiff-Appellee Waste Action Project’s
motion to modify the consent decree, Defendants never appealed that order, and it
is therefore not subject to our review. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d
434, 444 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting that “an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)
motion brings up for review only the denial of that motion, but not the underlying
judgment”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’
motion to modify the consent decree. Hook v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 107 F.3d 1397,
1402 (9th Cir. 1997). It reasonably concluded that Defendants’ reasons for the
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
proposed modifications, including their own role in causing permitting delays, did
not constitute a “significant change in circumstances” justifying revision of the
decree, or “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). NLRB v. Int’l Ass’n of Ironworkers Union, Loc.
433, 891 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2018); Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1262
(9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 584 (2023). Moreover, Defendants failed
to show why the 18-24 month break they sought was “suitably tailored to resolve
the [alleged] problems created by” any supposed change in conditions. United
States v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2005).
2. Defendants’ argument as to the district court’s denial of their motion for
reconsideration is premised on their contention that the district court erroneously
denied the motion to modify the consent decree. Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Defendants’ motion to modify, and because
Defendants did not present “new facts or legal authority which could not have been
brought to [the district court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence,” the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. Rule 7(h)(1); see Guenther v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 972 F.3d 1043, 1058 (9th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --