eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2015-03

Sylvester Hoffart v. Dwd Contractors, Inc. ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVESTER J. HOFFART; et al.,                       No. 13-35690
Plaintiffs - Appellants,            D.C. No. 3:12-mc-00395-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DWD CONTRACTORS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sylvester J. Hoffart, as the legal representative of the Estate of Louise T.
Hoffart, appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the defendants’
motion to stay the execution of a judgment against certain assets and properties.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion a district court’s decision to enter an injunction. Hilao v. Estate of
Marcos,
    95 F.3d 848
    , 851 (9th Cir. 1996). We review de novo issues of law and
review for clear error findings of fact. Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
    308 F.3d 1065
    , 1069 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants’
motion to stay the enforcement of the judgment obtained against the Estate of Hal
C. Wiggins. See 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (judgment registered in a district court “shall
have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where
registered and may be enforced in like manner”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (the law
of the state in which the federal judgment is registered governs the procedures for
execution of the judgment).
The district court properly concluded that the assets and properties allegedly
subject to the judgment were the personal property of Joanne Wiggins, the
surviving spouse of Hal C. Wiggins. See also Hoyt v. Am. Traders, Inc.,
    725 P.2d 336
    , 338, n.1 (Or. 1986) (a debtor-spouse’s interest in property owned in a tenancy
in its entirety, expires upon the death of the debtor-spouse and does not pass to the
surviving spouse).
We do not consider the arguments raised by Hoffart in his notice, filed on
February 6, 2015, because they were not raised in the opening brief. See Smith v.
2                                        13-35690
Marsh,
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
3      13-35690