Narrative Opinion Summary
Gys Jansen Van Beek and Zwaantje Jansen Van Beek appealed the district court's denial of their motion to vacate a civil judgment of quiet title under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The appellate jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the case was reviewed for abuse of discretion, referencing Maraziti v. Thorpe. The court affirmed the district court's decision, noting that the original judgment and decree of quiet title was entered in 1998 and affirmed in 1995. The Van Beeks did not file their motion to reopen the case within a reasonable timeframe, which the court deemed unreasonable, referencing McKinney v. Boyle's precedent regarding delays over four years. The decision is not intended for publication and may not be cited in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate jurisdiction for reviewing the denial of a motion to vacate a civil judgment is established under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the case was reviewed for abuse of discretion, referencing Maraziti v. Thorpe.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not intended for publication and may not be cited in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The decision is not intended for publication and may not be cited in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Standard of Review for Motion to Vacate Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the denial of a motion to vacate a civil judgment for abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: The appellate jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the case was reviewed for abuse of discretion, referencing Maraziti v. Thorpe.
Timeliness of Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A motion to vacate a judgment must be filed within a reasonable timeframe, with delays over four years deemed unreasonable.
Reasoning: The Van Beeks did not file their motion to reopen the case within a reasonable timeframe, which the court deemed unreasonable, referencing McKinney v. Boyle's precedent regarding delays over four years.