Case ID: br_579/html/0922-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: LLS AMERICA, LLC, Debtor. Bruce P. Kriegman, solely in his capacity as court appointed Chapter 11 Trustee for LLS America LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Van Perry, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-35976, 15-35985
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Daniel J. Gibbons, Shelley N. Ripley, Duane Michael Swinton, Attorneys, Matthew Alphonse Mensik, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David Van Perry, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Van Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a bench trial directing Perry to repay proceeds he received from debtor LLS America, LLC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, and de novo the district court’s conclusions of law. One-Beacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the law of the case doctrine applied to its earlier ruling that LLS America, LLC engaged in a Ponzi scheme because Perry failed to establish any basis for departing from the doctrine. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting the limited discretion of a court not to apply the law of the case and setting forth requisite conditions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perry’s post-judgment motion construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 because Perry failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (grounds for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir, 1993) (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Perry’s contention that service of process was faulty.

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.