Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rubera

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE No. 09-35655
COMMISSION,
D.C. No. 3:01-cv-01283-PA
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ERNEST BUSTOS, MEMORANDUM *
Intervenor - Appellant,
v.
PAUL S. RUBERA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 20, 2010 **
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Intervenor-Appellant Ernest Bustos (“Bustos”) appeals pro se an order of the
district court holding him in contempt for failure to obey the court’s Order to Show
*
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).
Cause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and we affirm the
district court.
Bustos is not a party to the ongoing receivership. See SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d
1130, 1140-43 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, he may appeal the contempt order
and thereby challenge the district court’s authority to issue the underlying show
cause order. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010)
(noting a nonparty seeking to challenge a court’s order may do so “only by electing
to ignore the order and appealing any ensuing contempt citation”).
We conclude the district court had jurisdiction to issue the Order to Show
Cause. Bustos brought himself within the district court’s jurisdiction by
committing seven purposeful acts in the forum that gave rise to this action. McGee
v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957) (stating that a single action in the
forum can be enough if it is the basis for the cause of action). Moreover, the
district court had the inherent authority to determine if Bustos was using the
court’s docketing system to perpetuate a fraud. Cf. Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et
Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987); see also Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of
Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831-33 (1994). Finally, we conclude the district
1
“Once the finding of contempt has been made and a sanction imposed, the
order has acquired all the elements of operativeness and consequences necessary to
be possessed by any judicial order to enable it to have the status of a final decision
under § 1291.” Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983).
2
court did not abuse its discretion by holding Bustos in contempt and imposing
sanctions based on Bustos’ failure to comply with the Show Cause Order. See
Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.2
2
We deny Bustos’s pending “Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief.”
Without a new notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review post-judgment
orders. Cf. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1996).
3