
    Ulrich RISCHER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANLAVOURA I, INC., a California corporation; Banlavoura I, Inc. Trust, a California trust; Englewood I, Inc., a California corporation; Englewood I, Inc. Trust, a California trust; Larry Esacove, an individual; and Aida Esacove, an individual, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 08-56712.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 4, 2010.
    
    Filed April 20, 2010.
    John D. Guerrini, Guerrini Law Firm, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Barry G. Felder, Esquire, Thelen LLP, New York, NY, Tina Glandian, Esquire, Geragos & Geragos, Staci Jennifer Rior-dan, Esquire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew C. Mickelson, Esquire, Law Offices of Matthew C. Mickel-son, Encino, CA, George Workman Bueh-ler, Buehler & Kassabian, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendants Banlavoura I, Inc. Trust; Englewood I, Inc. Trust; Banlavoura I, Inc.; Englewood I, Inc.; Larry Esacove; and Aida Esacove appeal the denial of their motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying their motion to set aside an assignment of judgment and to vacate a renewal of the judgment. We review for abuse of discretion. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. There were no new material facts or changes of law since the time of the district court’s original order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (providing that motions for reconsideration are allowed due to “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial”; fraud; or “any other reason that justifies relief’); C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (providing that a motion for reconsideration may be made only on the grounds of, among other things, the emergence of new material facts or a change of law). Defendants assert that the handwriting analysis produced after the district court’s original order is a new fact, but they are mistaken. Evidence is not new when the facts on which it is based had been in the moving party’s possession since the start of the litigation. Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208, 210 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     