John Doe v. Hawkins, Delafield and Wood

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE, No. 09-15038
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01502-MHP
and
MEMORANDUM *
AMARPAL SINGH and SAN FRAN
TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HAWKINS, DELAFIELD AND WOOD;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
John Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s order designating him as
payee for settlement proceeds following the settlement of his ERISA action against
First Unum Life Insurance Co. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. Kirkland v. Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135,
1140 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it designated Doe as the
settlement payee after giving Doe numerous warnings, holding three hearings on
the issue, and allowing Doe more than a year in which to set up a valid special
needs trust. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doe’s requests to
bring additional claims after entry of the settlement agreement. See Ventress v.
Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of
review).
Doe’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Doe’s motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15038