Tarverdiyeva v. Coinbase, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAHILA TARVERDIYEVA; VIJAY No. 24-826 TANDON, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05468-WHA

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

MEMORANDUM* v. COINBASE, INC.; COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; PHILLIP MARTIN; MATTHEW MULLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 20, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Rahila Tarverdiyeva and Vijay Tandon appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

60(b)(3) in their civil action alleging fraud and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc, 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 60(b)(3) because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1260 (to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court was required to hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(3) motion.

We do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the underlying judgment because plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-826