MEMORANDUM ****

Jimmy Ewenike appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen and amend an order awarding him attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) based on a subsequent award of past-due benefits to his client’s minor child. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Ewenike failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 60(b)(2) because he failed to show reasonable diligence in pursuing his claim for attorney’s fees from the award to claimant’s minor son. Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discre *677 tion where movant under Rule 60(b)(2) failed to show (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) an exercise of reasonable due diligence to discover the evidence, and (3) a likelihood the evidence would impact the prior judgment). For example, he failed to mention fees for the subsequent award to claimant’s minor son in his fee petition or to give notice to the district court that his approved fee petition was only preliminary and he would later seek supplemental fees. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ewenike’s motion to reopen and amend. 1

AFFIRMED.