Chandler v. Johnson
This text of 601 F. App'x 589 (Chandler v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel correctly dismissed Chandler’s appeals of the bankruptcy court’s entry of a default judgment of contempt against him. Chandler was clearly apprised of the contempt proceedings and the bankruptcy court’s entry of a default judgment of contempt. However, he didn’t move the bankruptcy court to set aside the entry of the default judgment or for relief from the default judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), 60(b). An appeal “‘cannot be used as a substitute’ for these procedures.” Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Domain Name Clearing Co., 346 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Rohauer v. Friedman, [591]*591306 F.2d 933, 937 (9th Cir.1962)); see also In re Lam, 192 F.3d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (“[A] party may not challenge the entry of default in the first instance in an appellate court; rather, a party must first file an appropriate motion in the court where the default was entered.”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
601 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-johnson-ca9-2015.