Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2022

Docket21-55208

StatusUnpublished

This text of Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, 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

Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., (9th Cir. 2022).

Pincite

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Related

A. v. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines and Does I Through Xc

681 F.2d 1199 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.

590 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-johnson-v-caliber-home-loans-inc-ca9-2022.