Palomo v. Baba
| Decision Date | 28 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2308.,73-2308. |
| Citation | 497 F.2d 959 |
| Parties | Manuel A. PALOMO and Gavina A. Palomo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Akira BABA and Eulogio Declarmen, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas J. Nolan (argued), W. Scott Barrett, Barrett, Ferenz, Bramhall, Paul & Klemm, Oakland, Cal., John C. Dierking, Agana, Guam, for defendants-appellants.
Howard G. Trapp (argued), Trapp & Gayle & Co., Agana, Guam, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before DUNIWAY, CHOY and SNEED, Circuit Judges.
The district court entered judgment in favor of appellees, the Palomos, in their action to cancel a lease and to quiet title to a 37,000 square meter tract of land. The court found that "Inadequacy of rental consideration coupled with a consent and execution procured by misrepresentation of a material fact relied upon by persons the Palomos who are mentally deficient and unable to exercise rational care of their property are essential elements which, in totality, warrant such cancellation."
Two days after Baba and Delcarmen filed their notice of appeal from the judgment, they filed a motion in the district court to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence pursuant to Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P. The newly discovered evidence was a quitclaim deed covering 40,000 square feet of the tract in question executed by the Palomos in favor of their attorney, Howard Trapp, as a contingent fee, and one, Edward S. Terlaje as a "referral fee." The deed was to be effective only upon judgment in favor of the Palomos.
The 60(b) motion was denied, whereupon appellants filed another appeal from the denial. This court in an unpublished Memorandum affirmed as to the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal for want of present jurisdiction since the district court had no power to consider the motion to vacate judgment pending appeal from that judgment to this court. Upon the mandate being issued to the district court, appellants moved that the district court again rule on their 60(b) motion to vacate judgment. The district court again denied that motion. This appeal ensued. We affirm.
While the district court had jurisdiction to act on the Rule 60(b) motion after its judgment had been affirmed and after it had received the mandate from this court, as to all matters encompassed by the mandate, such jurisdiction rested on conformance with the mandate. However, the district court could not have acted in a manner inconsistent with the mandate of affirmance, except with the consent of this court. See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C. C., 149 U.S.App.D.C. 322, 463 F.2d 268, 280 n.22 (1971)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.E.C. v. Advance Growth Capital Corp.
...decision was made. See Kodekey Electronics, Inc. v. Mechanex Corp., 500 F.2d 110, 112-113 (10th Cir. 1974); cf. Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir. 1974); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. American Oil Co.,405 F.2d 803, 812 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1745, 23 L......
-
Williams v. Warden for Nev., Women's Corr. Fac., 2:03-cv-00874 PMP-LRL.
...Mandate affirming the prior Judgment denying the Petition on the merits and entering judgment for Respondents. Cf. Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir.1974)(district court could not act inconsistent with mandate of Moreover, if the Court were to review the jurisdictional issue de nov......
-
Musser v. U.S.
...did not abuse its discretion by denying Musser's motions for reconsideration. Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388; see also Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that where a Rule 60(b) motion is made after the district court's judgment is affirmed on appeal, the district court ......
-
Hall v. Contra Costa County
...sanctions have already been affirmed by this court and could not have been vacated by the district court upon remand. Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d 959, 960 (9th Cir. 1974) (district court may not act inconsistently with the mandate of affirmance). This court's decision to award Rule 38 sanction......