NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRY STEINER, a single woman and No. 19-35953 personal representative estate of David L Steiner, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00271-RSM

Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Terry Steiner appeals from the district court’s order denying her second

post-judgment motion in her action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. We have jurisdiction

* 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steiner’s second

post-judgment motion for reconsideration and denying leave to amend because

Steiner failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Lindauer

v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nce judgment has been entered

in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment

is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-35953