John Branca v. Heal the World Foundation ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN G. BRANCA, Special No. 11-56926
Administrator of the Estate of Michael J.
Jackson; et al., D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07084-DMG-
PLA
Plaintiffs-counter-defendants
- Appellees,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION, a
California corporation and UNITED
FLEET, a California corporation,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellants.
JOHN G. BRANCA, Special No. 11-57048
Administrator of the Estate of Michael J.
Jackson; et al., D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07084-DMG-
PLA
Plaintiffs-counter-defendants
- Appellees,
v.
HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION, a
California corporation and UNITED
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FLEET, a California corporation,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Heal the World Foundation and United Fleet appeal the district
court’s denial of Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) seeking relief from the judgment entered against them. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Defendants’ Rule 60(b) motion. See United States v. Chapman, 642 F.3d 1236,
1240 (9th Cir. 2011). First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that no relief was warranted under Rule 60(b)(2) because the purported
new evidence was discovered prior to the entry of judgment. See Jones v.
Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990). Second, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district
court’s amended judgment only bound Melissa Johnson in her official capacity as
an officer of Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); N.L.R.B. v. Sequoia Dist.
Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, 568 F.2d 628, 633–34 (9th Cir. 1977). Finally,
the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6) because,
notwithstanding any representations by Defendants’ attorney that the Settlement
Agreement that Johnson signed was non-binding, the agreement was only 6 pages
long and was expressly labeled as “binding,” “final,” and “enforceable.” Thus,
enforcement of the agreement was not manifestly unjust. Latshaw v. Trainer
Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006).
2. Because we conclude that relief from the Settlement Agreement and
resulting judgment is not warranted under Rule 60(b), we need not resolve
Defendants’ other arguments regarding whether the district court properly (1)
dismissed Defendants’ counterclaims, and (2) entered a preliminary injunction
against Defendants. See Slaven v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc., 146 F.3d 1066,
1070 (9th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.