Stephen Johnson v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A. No. 21-55208
JOHNSON,
D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01387-PA-GJS
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district
court’s order denying their second motion for post-judgment relief in their action
arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
*
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).
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Johnsons’
second motion for post-judgment relief because the Johnsons failed to establish
any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
The Johnsons’ reliance on Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions
Group, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020), is misplaced because that case concerns claim
preclusion under federal law. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d
1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982) (“A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the res
judicata law of the state in which it sits.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55208