Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CANELA CIFUENTES CATALAN, No. 25-2022 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:22-cv-00062-JGB-SP v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES S. HILL, Warden; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants - Appellees, ESTATE OF MATTHEW SIGALA, on behalf of Matthew Sigala individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2026** Pasadena, California * 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). Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judge, and ORRICK, District Judge.*** Canela Cifuentes Catalan appeals the denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing her claims against the Estate of Matthew Sigala. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 1. Because Cifuentes’s opening brief argues that “the proper basis for relief in this unique situation lies not in Rule 60(b)(1)’s ‘excusable neglect’ provision, but in Rule 60(b)(6),” Cifuentes has waived her claim to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Even if we considered Cifuentes’s Rule 60(b)(1) claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion because “the balance of the Pioneer factors supports the district court’s decision.” M.D. ex. rel. Doe v. Newport-Mesa Unified Sch. Dist., 840 F.3d 640, 643 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’Ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); see also Casey, 362 F.3d at 1260 (affirming the district court when the length of and reasons for the delay weighed against relief). 2. Cifuentes also seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because after the clerk entered default against the Estate, and the district court dismissed Cifuentes’s claims against the Estate, the Estate answered Cifuentes’s complaint. But relief *** The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 25-2022 under Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). The Estate’s post-dismissal answer is not an extraordinary circumstance which affected Cifuentes’s ability either to prevent an erroneous judgment or to correct that judgment by timely appeal. So although the district court did not consider Cifuentes’s Rule 60(b)(6) claim, we sustain its denial of Cifuentes’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 897 n.7 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Even though the district court did not address this argument, we consider it in the first instance because [the appellant] raised the argument before the district court and we may sustain the dismissal for reasons not addressed by the court below.” (citation modified)). AFFIRMED.1 1 We DENY as moot Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 28). 3 25-2022