United States v. Real Property Located at 25445 via Dona Christa, Valencia, California, and Ramdas P. Gupta, Claimant-Appellant

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Real Property Located at 25445 via Dona Christa, Valencia, California, and Ramdas P. Gupta, Claimant-Appellant

170 F.3d 1161, 99 Daily Journal DAR 2363, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1829, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953, 1999 WL 129494

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1999

Docket95-56352

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 170 F.3d 1161 (United States v. Real Property Located at 25445 via Dona Christa, Valencia, California, and Ramdas P. Gupta, Claimant-Appellant) 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

United States v. Real Property Located at 25445 via Dona Christa, Valencia, California, and Ramdas P. Gupta, Claimant-Appellant, 170 F.3d 1161, 99 Daily Journal DAR 2363, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1829, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953, 1999 WL 129494 (9th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

*1162 The opinion filed March 3, 1998 [138 F.3d 403], is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 1734, under subheading C. [138 F.3d at 409] substitute the following, before text that reads, “Therefore, the law of the case doctrine....”

Claimant’s other assertions are not reviewable. In an unpublished decision by a previous panel, this court held that Claimant’s due process argument was waived. Claimant asserts now that the panel’s holding was erroneous because he raised his due process issue to the previous panel in his opening brief on appeal. He is correct about when he first raised this issue, but wrong about the effect of his failure timely to have raised it in the district court. In this case, we deem his failure at the district court level to be a waiver of the issue notwithstanding his untimely attempt to bring it to the previous panel’s attention on appeal. See A-l Ambulance Service Inc. v. County of Monterey, 90 F.3d 333, 337 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not raised in the trial court may be deemed waived).

With this amendment, the petition for rehearing, and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

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

*1162 The opinion filed March 3, 1998 [138 F.3d 403], is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 1734, under subheading C. [138 F.3d at 409] substitute the following, before text that reads, “Therefore, the law of the case doctrine....”

Claimant’s other assertions are not reviewable. In an unpublished decision by a previous panel, this court held that Claimant’s due process argument was waived. Claimant asserts now that the panel’s holding was erroneous because he raised his due process issue to the previous panel in his opening brief on appeal. He is correct about when he first raised this issue, but wrong about the effect of his failure timely to have raised it in the district court. In this case, we deem his failure at the district court level to be a waiver of the issue notwithstanding his untimely attempt to bring it to the previous panel’s attention on appeal. See A-l Ambulance Service Inc. v. County of Monterey, 90 F.3d 333, 337 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not raised in the trial court may be deemed waived).

With this amendment, the petition for rehearing, and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F.3d 1161, 99 Daily Journal DAR 2363, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1829, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953, 1999 WL 129494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-real-property-located-at-25445-via-dona-christa-valencia-ca9-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack