Tsvetan Torbov v. Cenlar Fsb ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TSVETAN S. TORBOV, No. 18-15382
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00130-BLF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CENLAR FSB; NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Tsvetan S. Torbov appeals pro se from the jury verdict in his diversity action
related to his home mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s evidentiary rulings. Duran
v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding documents related
to out-of-state proceedings against a non-party foreclosure agent because the
“probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of . . . unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of
Torbov’s employment and medical-related damages because they were not relevant
to Torbov’s contractual claims. See Plut v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 102 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 36, 43 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Contract damages are generally limited to those
within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered into.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of
Torbov’s loan payment history before March 2013 because it was relevant to the
question of whether Torbov had fulfilled his contractual obligations. See Fed. R.
Evid. 401 (defining relevant evidence).
We reject as without merit Torbov’s contentions that the jury verdict form
was confusing, and that the district court erroneously declined to respond to the
jury’s questions during deliberation.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15382