Diggs v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Diggs v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc.

692 F. App'x 424

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2017

Docket16-55709

StatusUnpublished

This text of 692 F. App'x 424 (Diggs v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

Diggs v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc., 692 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

April E. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate the judgment in her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Fid. Nat. Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 803 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Diggs’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) because Diggs failed to establish that the judgment was void. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270-71, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or. the opportunity to be heard” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

April E. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate the judgment in her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Fid. Nat. Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 803 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Diggs’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) because Diggs failed to establish that the judgment was void. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270-71, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or. the opportunity to be heard” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diggs-v-greenpoint-mortgage-funding-inc-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack