Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A. No. 21-55208 JOHNSON, D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01387-PA-GJS Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM* CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their second motion for post-judgment relief in their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

*

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).

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Johnsons’

second motion for post-judgment relief because the Johnsons failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

The Johnsons’ reliance on Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020), is misplaced because that case concerns claim preclusion under federal law. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982) (“A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the res judicata law of the state in which it sits.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55208