Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

April E. DIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING INC., Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55709
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 6, 2017
    
      April E. Diggs, Pro Se
    Hunter Eley, Connie Yuenting Tcheng, Doll Amir & Eley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

April E. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate the judgment in her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Fid. Nat. Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 803 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Diggs’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) because Diggs failed to establish that the judgment was void. See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270-71, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or. the opportunity to be heard” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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