From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paradise Valley Farms v. F.D.I.C

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2010
403 F. App'x 173 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-15209.

Submitted November 2, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 4, 2010.

Paradise Valley Farms, Greenleaf, ID, pro se.

Phillip W. Geerston, Greenleaf, ID, pro se.

Marilyn L. Geertson, Greenleaf, ID, pro se.

Geertson LLC, pro se.

Geertson Farms, Inc., pro se.

Steve Geertson, Gillette, WY, pro se.

Lisa Geertson, Gillette, WY, pro se.

Douglas Behrends, Greenleaf, ID, pro se.

Robert R. Hager, Esquire, Treva J. Hearne, Esquire, Hager Hearne, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joann Behrends, Greenleaf, ID, for Plaintiffs.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00759-LRH.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER, Senior District Judge.

The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

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

Phillip Geertson appeals. His brief states that the appeal is from an order dismissing claims, but that cannot be so; there is no such order. Indeed, as the district court's orders make clear, no judgment has been entered. Absent a final order, there is no appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 — which is the only basis upon which his brief asserts that we may proceed. Even if we ignore this and look to his notice of appeal, it indicates that Geertson appeals the December 27, 2007 denial of reconsideration. However, we lack jurisdiction on the basis of that order, too, unless we suppose that what Geertson actually means to appeal was the underlying order of September 28, 2007. Assuming this is so, and that we have jurisdiction, see Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phx. Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1420-21 (9th Cir. 1984), his appeal lacks merit and we affirm.

Geertson appears to treat Paradise Valley Farms as an appellant as well, though it is not.

To the extent Geertson argues that the district court erroneously held him in contempt, the argument is frivolous. No such order appears. Beyond this, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting in part the Bank's motion to compel. The UCC has no bearing on the matter in dispute. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying Geertson's motion for reconsideration. It did not clearly err in any respect; in particular it did not err in failing to require the Bank to comply with the UCC because the UCC was not relevant to the settlement or the subsequent orders enforcing it.

Finally, Geertson suggests in reply that the FDIC is not the real party in interest. This is also frivolous.

We remind counsel for Geertson that briefs on appeal must comply with Fed.R.App.P. 28. The statements made, and arguments presented, should accurately reflect the record. Frivolous appeals and arguments may be sanctioned under Fed.R.App.P. 38.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Paradise Valley Farms v. F.D.I.C

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2010
403 F. App'x 173 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Paradise Valley Farms v. F.D.I.C

Case Details

Full title:PARADISE VALLEY FARMS, a Nevada partnership; et al., Plaintiffs, Page 174…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 4, 2010

Citations

403 F. App'x 173 (9th Cir. 2010)