context: The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis' motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 5 F.3d 1263, 1263
citation_a.parenthetical: setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b
citation_a.sentence: See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party’s failure to meet a déadline constitutes “excusable neglect”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 624 F.3d 1253, 1261
citation_b.parenthetical: setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party's failure to meet a deadline constitutes "excusable neglect"
citation_b.sentence: See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party’s failure to meet a déadline constitutes “excusable neglect”).