Nicdao v. Cash Alaska II, LLC (In Re Nicdao)

Ninth Circuit

Nicdao v. Cash Alaska II, LLC (In Re Nicdao)

503 F. App'x 536

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 2013

Docket11-35102

StatusUnpublished

This text of 503 F. App'x 536 (Nicdao v. Cash Alaska II, LLC (In Re Nicdao)) 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

Nicdao v. Cash Alaska II, LLC (In Re Nicdao), 503 F. App'x 536 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Elena Gamboa Nicdao appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her second appeal from the bankruptcy court’s amended judgment in her Chapter 7 adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nicdao’s second appeal because, after the bankruptcy court amended its judgment on remand following Nicdao’s first appeal, there were no additional issues for the district court to review and it was precluded from reconsidering previously decided *537 issues. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.1998) (law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the identical case). Nicdao also failed to establish grounds based upon which the district court could exercise its discretion not to apply the preclusive law of the case doctrine and reconsider issues it had decided in the first appeal. See id. at 155 (discussing limited exceptions to the law of the case doctrine).

We do not address issues raised by Nic-dao for the first time on appeal. See Brown v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 108 F.3d 208, 210, n. 1 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and 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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Elena Gamboa Nicdao appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her second appeal from the bankruptcy court’s amended judgment in her Chapter 7 adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nicdao’s second appeal because, after the bankruptcy court amended its judgment on remand following Nicdao’s first appeal, there were no additional issues for the district court to review and it was precluded from reconsidering previously decided *537 issues. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.1998) (law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the identical case). Nicdao also failed to establish grounds based upon which the district court could exercise its discretion not to apply the preclusive law of the case doctrine and reconsider issues it had decided in the first appeal. See id. at 155 (discussing limited exceptions to the law of the case doctrine).

We do not address issues raised by Nic-dao for the first time on appeal. See Brown v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 108 F.3d 208, 210, n. 1 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicdao-v-cash-alaska-ii-llc-in-re-nicdao-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack