PATSY SAKUMA V. ASSOC. OF APT. OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, ET AL, No. 22-16929 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATSY N. SAKUMA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16929 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKWKJM v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an * 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). abuse of discretion. 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 in denying Sakuma’s motion for relief from judgment because Sakuma failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); id. at 444-446 (discussing the factors for determining whether a change in law qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)); Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing grounds for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Sakuma’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied. Sakuma’s motions at Docket Entries Nos. 24 and 27 are granted to the extent she seeks to file the reply briefs submitted on July 10, 2023. The Clerk will file the reply briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 26. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16929

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.