Zogheib v. Coast Hotels & Casinos, Inc.
Docket: No. 07-16683
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 21, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Jihad Anthony Zogheib appeals a district court order that denied his motion to set aside a stipulated dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Zogheib acknowledges the diversity of the named parties but argues that fictitious defendants undermined this diversity, thus affecting jurisdiction. However, he failed to substitute named defendants for those represented by fictitious names, and the citizenship of these fictitious defendants lacks jurisdictional relevance, as established in Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court found no clear error in determining that Zogheib’s attorney had the authority to enter the dismissal and did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Zogheib contends that the court improperly focused on his attorney's authority instead of mutual intent to dismiss, but the signatures of both parties' attorneys on the stipulation evidenced such mutual intent, consistent with Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). The ruling is affirmed, noting that the decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The court granted the appellee's unopposed motion to strike new and irrelevant arguments from the reply brief and supplemental record, while denying the motion for monetary sanctions.