Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00682/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00682-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Morgal and Patricia Morgal, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Northwest Title Agency, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0682-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Request for Hearing Re: Ninth Circuit

Opinion (Doc. #30) and Emergency Hearing Request (Doc. #35). The Court now rules on

the Requests.

Plaintiffs filed the underlying federal suit essentially to appeal from a state court

judgment granting an equitable mortgage to Northwest Title Agency, Inc. in the home

Plaintiffs had purchased. In its June 20, 2005 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its

Mandate on October 20, 2006 affirming this Court's judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' case. 

“The mandate of an appellate court forecloses the lower court from reconsidering

matters determined in the appellate court.” Nguyen v. U.S., 792 F.2d 1500, 1502 (9th Cir.

1986). “Post mandate maneuvering in the district courts would undermine the authority of

appellate courts and . . . . eliminate any hope of finality.” Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

825 F.2d 1506, 1511-12 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 1006 (1988). 

Case 2:05-cv-00682-JAT Document 36 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed this Court's Order that it lacks

jurisdiction over this case. The Court therefore cannot revisit the issue of jurisdiction.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, the Court cannot entertain the Plaintiffs'

requests or any other motions or filings by the parties.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Request for Hearing Re: Ninth Circuit Opinion

(Doc. #30) and Emergency Hearing Request (Doc. #35).

DATED this 14th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00682-JAT Document 36 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 2