Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hollis-Arrington v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.
Citation: 61 F. App'x 462Docket: No. 02-56279; D.C. No. CV-00-11125-CBM
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 17, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington appeals the district court’s summary judgment regarding her claims against Cendant Mortgage Corporation, which include breach of contract, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, deceit, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The court affirms the summary judgment, stating Hollis-Arrington did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims. The court notes that mere desire to cross-examine an affiant or a vague hope to undermine credibility is insufficient to prevent summary judgment. The district court's decision to set aside a clerk’s entry of default was not an abuse of discretion, as the defendant acted promptly to rectify the default and had a valid defense. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hollis-Arrington's motion to recuse the presiding judge or her motion to extend the discovery period. The appellate court declines to consider new issues presented for the first time on appeal and denies Hollis-Arrington’s Motion for Judicial Notice. The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition is not publishable or citable in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.