Michael Boyajian v. Shahrokh Ordoubadi

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MICHAEL BOYAJIAN; LAYLA No. 09-56718
BOYAJIAN,
D.C. No. 2:96-cv-05737-GHK
Debtors,
MEMORANDUM *
LOEFF & VAN DER PLOEG,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
MAJOR DUNE, INC., Assignee of
Plaintiff,
Movant,
v.
SHAHROKH ORDOUBADI,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL BOYAJIAN,
Defendant,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In re: MICHAEL BOYAJIAN; LAYLA No. 09-56738
BOYAJIAN,
D.C. No. 2:96-cv-05737-GHK
Debtors,
SHAHROKH ORDOUBADI,
Defendant - Appellant - Cross-
Appellee,
v.
MAYOR DUNE, INC., Assignee of
Plaintiff,
Movant - Appellee - Cross-
Appellant,
and
LOEFF & VAN DER PLOEG,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
MICHAEL BOYAJIAN,
Defendant.
2
In re: SHAKROKH SHAWN No. 09-56759
ORDOUBADI,
D.C. No. 2:97-cv-03914-GHK
Debtor,
LOEFF & VAN DER PLOEG,
Plaintiff,
MAYOR DUNE, INC., assignee of record
of plaintiff/judgment creditor Loeff & Van
Der Ploeg,
Movant - Appellant.,
v.
SHAKROKH SHAWN ORDOUBADI,
Defendant - Appellee.
LOEFF VAN DER PLOEG, No. 09-56760
Plaintiff,
D.C. No. 2:97-cv-03913-GHK-
_____________________ BQR
SHAHROKH ORDOUBADI; KAVEH
KARL SHOWRAI; MICHAEL
BOYAJIAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
v.
3
MAYOR DUNE, INC., Judgment
Creditors,
Movant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Shahrokh Ordoubadi appeals the district court’s rulings that his Motion to
Vacate Renewal of Judgment and his Motion for an Order Requiring Mayor Dune
to File an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment were in substance motions
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and had been unreasonably delayed.
Mayor Dune, Inc. cross-appeals the district court’s finding that Mayor Dune had
not provided notice of the renewed judgment.
District courts have the authority to treat motions seeking relief from a
judgment as Rule 60(b) motions regardless of the name the parties give them. See
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
4
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 745 (9th Cir. 2008) (treating Application to
Amend Order Nunc Pro Tunc as a Rule 60(b) motion); Am. Ironworks & Erectors,
Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (construing
motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion). The district court properly
construed Ordoubadi’s motions as motions under Rule 60(b).
“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to
the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of
discretion.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). Rule
60(c)(1) states that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable
time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The district court explained that it had already
rejected a prior Rule 60(b) motion filed in 2006 as untimely because Ordoubadi
had known about the facts underlying the motion as early as September 2004. The
years that elapsed between Ordoubadi’s first Rule 60(b) motion and his 2009
motions have not improved his case. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that Ordoubadi’s motions were untimely.
We affirm the district court’s judgment. Because we affirm the district
court, we do not reach Mayor Dune’s cross appeal.
5
AFFIRMED.
6