Narrative Opinion Summary
Anthony Cataldo appeals the district court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to improper service by the Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. Cataldo claims that the service did not comply with the terms of their contract. However, the Writers Guild served Cataldo according to both federal and state civil procedure rules. Even if the contract specified an additional service method, the failure to use that method does not affect the court's personal jurisdiction. The court cites precedent from *The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.*, reinforcing that the absence of compliance with the contract's service provisions does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The appeal is affirmed, and this decision is not intended for publication or to serve as precedent, except as stated in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contractual Service Provisions and Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that noncompliance with contractual service provisions does not affect personal jurisdiction when statutory service requirements are met.
Reasoning: Even if the contract specified an additional service method, the failure to use that method does not affect the court's personal jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court maintained personal jurisdiction despite the appellant's claim of improper service, as service was conducted in accordance with federal and state civil procedure rules.
Reasoning: Cataldo claims that the service did not comply with the terms of their contract. However, the Writers Guild served Cataldo according to both federal and state civil procedure rules.
Precedential Effect of Unpublished Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This decision will not be published or considered as precedent, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The appeal is affirmed, and this decision is not intended for publication or to serve as precedent, except as stated in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.