Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01446/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01446-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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 1

 Icenhower claims that the bankruptcy court agreed to dismiss him as a defendant

in the adversary proceedings, but this order is not in the official transcript. 

1 08cv1446 BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JERRY L. ICENHOWER, et al.

Debtors,

KISMET ACQUISITION, LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08cv1446 BTM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.

JERRY L. ICENHOWER, et al.,

Defendant.

Jerry L. Icenhower has moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

The Court only briefly summarizes the facts relevant to this motion. This case is an

appeal from a consolidated judgment in two bankruptcy adversary proceedings. The trustee,

who filed the adversary proceedings, sought to recover real property in Mexico which

Icenhower had transferred after he filed for bankruptcy. He first transferred the property to

a corporation called Howell & Gardner Investors, Inc., and he then arranged for it to be

transferred to a Mr. Diaz-Barba and Ms. Barba de la Torre (the “Diaz Family”). By filing the

adversary proceeding, the trustee sought to recover the property from the Diaz Family.

Although Icenhower was initially named a defendant in the suit, before trial, the bankruptcy

court purportedly dismissed Icenhower as a defendant,1

 and he only appeared as a witness

Case 3:08-cv-01446-BTM-BLM Document 104 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 Before trial started, the plaintiff trustee had been replaced by Kismet Acquisition,

LLC.

2 08cv1446 BTM (BLM)

during trial.

The bankruptcy court eventually entered judgment against the Diaz Family, voiding

the sales of the property and ordering the Diaz Family to transfer the property to the plaintiff.2

As part of this judgment, the bankruptcy court made several findings, including that Jerry

Icenhower was the alter ego of a shell corporation called Howell & Gardner Investors, Inc.

and that he fraudulently transferred the villa to H&G. These findings are the object of

Icenhower’s motion.

Icenhower claims that these findings formed part of the basis for a criminal indictment

returned against him. See United States v. Icenhower, No. 09cr1514 IEG (S.D. Cal. April 16,

2009). As a result of the indictment, he claims he was incarcerated for twenty-four days and

suffered other damages. 

Before filing this motion, Icenhower moved for the same relief in the bankruptcy court.

But the bankruptcy court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion because its

findings and judgment were on appeal to this Court. So Icenhower has now filed his motion

for relief from judgment here.

Icenhower’s motion is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the Court is unaware

of any authority permitting a party to make a Rule 60 motion before an appellate court, which

is the capacity in which the Court sits here. Second, Icenhower should have appealed the

bankruptcy court’s judgment if he was a defendant. He does not dispute that he received

notice of the judgment and admits that he simply discarded the documents related to the

adversary proceedings because he believed they had nothing to do with him. If he was not

a party, he would have neither standing to appeal nor seek Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Third,

Icenhower should have also appealed the bankruptcy court’s order denying his Rule 60

motion within fourteen days under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. Since he

failed to do so, he cannot raise it as error before this Court.

Even if the Court were to consider Icenhower’s motion, or remand and ask the

bankruptcy court to consider it, the motion would be denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Case 3:08-cv-01446-BTM-BLM Document 104 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3 08cv1446 BTM (BLM)

60(b)(6) is a catchall provision which allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment

for “any other reason that justifies relief.” This rule is “‘used sparingly as an equitable remedy

to prevent manifest injustice’ and ‘is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’”

United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v.

Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). “Accordingly, a party

who moves for such relief ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

control that prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action in a proper fashion.’” Latshaw

v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Community

Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Here, there are no extraordinary circumstances. First, if Icenhower was still a

defendant in the bankruptcy case, there were no “circumstances beyond his control that

prevented” Icenhower from appealing the bankruptcy court’s final judgment. Id. He received

notice of the judgment and could have appealed. Second, Icenhower claims he is prejudiced

because he learned on May 21, 2009 that the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact had been

presented to the grand jury. However, the indictment was based on the grand jury’s

independent determination of probable cause to believe Icenhower committed a federal

offense. Modifying the findings of fact would have no effect on the return of the indictment.

Simply stated, Icenhower failed to timely appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of the Rule 60

motion. This court, sitting as an appellate tribunal, has no independent jurisdiction to grant

the motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Icenhower’s Motion for Relief from

Judgment [Doc. 94].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01446-BTM-BLM Document 104 Filed 04/20/10 Page 3 of 3