Nah v. Jablon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 23-4003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAE S. NAH, No. 23-4003 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-06909-RGK-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ANDREW V. JABLON; MYCHAEL E. BYERTS; RESCH POLSTER & BERGER, LLP; GENNADY LEBEDEV; ETHAN MICHAEL; SAM HELMI; LM&H LAW FIRM; BRIAN HUH, President CEO of Royal Printex Inc. and Royal Textile print Inc.; ROYAL TEXTILE PRINT INC.; ROYAL PRINTEX INC.; ANDREW KIM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Jae S. Nah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

independent action to set aside prior judgments for fraud on the court under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014).

We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Shanks v. Dressel, 540

F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Nah’s action was proper because Nah failed to allege facts

sufficient to show conduct that amounted to fraud on the court. See United States

v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998) (concluding that “an independent action should

be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice”); United States v.

Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In determining

whether fraud constitutes fraud on the court, the relevant inquiry is not whether

fraudulent conduct prejudiced the opposing party, but whether it harmed the

integrity of the judicial process.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));

Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003)

(setting forth standard of review for an independent action to set aside a prior

judgment).

We do not consider the district court’s entry of a pre-filing review order

against Nah because Nah did not address the district court’s order in his opening

2 23-4003 brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief.”).

We do not consider other matters not specifically and distinctly raised and

argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.

2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-4003