FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10098086
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Tarverdiyeva v. Coinbase, Inc.

No. 10098086 · Decided August 28, 2024
No. 10098086 · Ninth Circuit · 2024 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 28, 2024
Citation
No. 10098086
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAHILA TARVERDIYEVA; VIJAY No. 24-826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. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Tarverdiyeva v. Coinbase, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 28, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10098086 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →