
    In re Michael BOYAJIAN; Layla Boyajian, Debtors, Loeff & Van Der Ploeg, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Major Dune, Inc., Assignee of Plaintiff, Movant, v. Shahrokh Ordoubadi, Defendant-Appellant, and Michael Boyajian, Defendant, In re Michael Boyajian; Layla Boyajian, Debtors, Shahrokh Ordoubadi, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Mayor Dune, Inc., Assignee of Plaintiff, Movant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, and Loeff & Van Der Ploeg, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Michael Boyajian, Defendant. In re Shakrokh Shawn Ordoubadi, Debtor, Loeff & Van Der Ploeg, Plaintiff, Mayor Dune, Inc., assignee of record of plaintiff/judgment creditor Loeff & Van Der Ploeg, Movant-Appellant., v. Shakrokh Shawn Ordoubadi, Defendant-Appellee. Loeff Van Der Ploeg, Plaintiff, Shahrokh Ordoubadi; Kaveh Karl Showrai; Michael Boyajian, Defendants-Appellees, v. Mayor Dune, Inc., Judgment Creditors, Movant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-56718, 09-56738, 09-56759, 09-56760.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Robert Boyajian, Law Offices of Robert Boyajian, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Boyajian, pro se.
    Shahrokh Ordoubadi, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Sharon R. Biederman, Esquire, Sharon Biederman & Associates, Seal Beach, CA, Robert Boyajian, for Movant-Appellee.
    Before: TROTT, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shahrokh Ordoubadi appeals the district court’s rulings that his Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and his Motion for an Order Requiring Mayor Dune to File an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment were in substance motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and had been unreasonably delayed. May- or Dune, Inc. cross-appeals the district court’s finding that Mayor Dune had not provided notice of the renewed judgment.

District courts have the authority to treat motions seeking relief from a judgment as Rule 60(b) motions regardless of the name the parties give them. See Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 745 (9th Cir.2008) (treating Application to Amend Order Nunc Pro Tunc as a Rule 60(b) motion); Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir.2001) (construing motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion). The district court properly construed Or-doubadi’s motions as motions under Rule 60(b).

“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004). Rule 60(c)(1) states that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). The district court explained that it had already rejected a prior Rule 60(b) motion filed in 2006 as untimely because Ordoubadi had known about the facts underlying the motion as early as September 2004. The years that elapsed between Ordoubadi’s first Rule 60(b) motion and his 2009 motions have not improved his case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Ordoubadi’s motions were untimely.

We affirm the district court’s judgment. Because we affirm the district court, we do not reach Mayor Dune’s cross appeal.

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