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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAHILA TARVERDIYEVA; VIJAY No.
04Rahila 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 pr
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.