
    Emil CADKIN, an individual and as Trustee of the Cadkin Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lila Cadkin, as Trustee of the Cadkin Trust, Plaintiff, v. Leona BLUESTONE; Estate of Harry Bluestone; Bluestone Trust; CB Music; Blue River Music; Broadcast Music, Inc; American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Defendants, and Carlin Production Music; Carbert Music, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-56352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Marty O’Toole, Law Offices of Marty O’Toole, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Andrew S. Oelz, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
    Anne K. Edwards, Rodi Pollock Pettker Christian & Pramov, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen R. Mick, Esquire, Counsel, Kevin Dale Rising, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. Emil Cadkin brought his motion to set aside the award of attorneys’ fees long after the one-year period for filing such motions had expired. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), (c). He may not circumvent the limitations period for motions alleging fraud by bringing his motion under the catchall provision in Rule 60(b)(6) instead. See Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2001).

2. Cadkin’s Rule 60(b) motion was long out of time, contained frivolous allegations of fraud on the court and impugned the integrity of opposing counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Carlin Production Music the attorneys’ fees it incurred opposing both the Rule 60(b) motion and the motion for reconsideration. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.1996).

3. The district court’s finding that Marty O’Toole proceeded in bad faith by making “repeated indefensible attacks on the fee award” was not clear error, nor was its order that O’Toole personally satisfy a portion of the attorneys’ fees an abuse of discretion. See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218-19 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     