Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellate court reviewed Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington's appeal against the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Cendant Mortgage Corporation. Hollis-Arrington alleged 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, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, affirmed the summary judgment, emphasizing that Hollis-Arrington had not established a genuine issue of material fact. The court also upheld the district court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in setting aside a default judgment, denying a motion to recuse the judge, and declining to extend the discovery period. Furthermore, the appellate court refused to consider new issues raised for the first time on appeal and denied Hollis-Arrington's motion for judicial notice. The judgment was affirmed, with the disposition being non-citable under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, reflecting the court's adherence to procedural and substantive legal standards.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Discretion in Setting Aside Defaultsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's decision to set aside the clerk’s entry of default was upheld because the defendant acted promptly and had a valid defense.
Reasoning: 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.
Appellate Review Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined to consider new issues raised for the first time on appeal.
Reasoning: The appellate court declines to consider new issues presented for the first time on appeal.
Denial of Extension of Discovery Periodsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion to extend the discovery period.
Reasoning: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hollis-Arrington's motion to extend the discovery period.
Denial of Motion to Recusesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's denial of the motion to recuse the presiding judge, finding no abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hollis-Arrington's motion to recuse the presiding judge.
Non-Citable Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's judgment is affirmed and is not publishable or citable in future cases in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition is not publishable or citable in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment as the appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.
Reasoning: The court affirms the summary judgment, stating Hollis-Arrington did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims.