N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : NATIVE ENERGY FAR M S, LLC ,

______________________________ C OASTAL B AND OF THE C HUM ASH NATION, Appe lla

nt,
v. NATIVE ENER G Y FARM S, LLC ,

Appe lle e . No. 17-15725 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00843-JC M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 11, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED N OV 06 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).In August 2014, Na t ive Ene rgy

Farm s, LLC (“Native Ene rgy ” ) sought a n orde r to quie t titleand for de c la ra tory re lie f in the B ankruptc y

C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va d a

to obta in “ a

bsolute title fre e from

a ll c la im s , inte re st a

nd
re stric tions” on a 7 8 -a c re pa rc e l of la nd in Gole t a , C a lifornia
. The C oa sta l B and of the C hum a s h Nation (“ C B C N” ) a lle ge dly grante d the pa rc e l to the Southe rn C hum a sh Owl C la

n in April 2013, a

nd Na t ive Ene rgy purc ha se d

it in Oc tobe r 2013. The c le rk e nte re d a fina l de fa ult judgm e nt in Nove m

be r 2014. In M ay 2015, the B ankruptc y

C ourt gra

nte d Native Ene rgy ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt quie t ing title

in the la nd. C B C N file d a

m otion to se t a side the de fa ult judgm e nt a

nd orde r granting them otion for sum m ary judgm e nt quie ting title

in the la nd. The B ankruptc y C o urt de nie d the m o tion, a

nd the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da a ffirm e d the judgm e nt. On a ppe a l, C B C N a

rgue s that the B ankruptc y

C ourt e rre d by

not se tting a side the judgm e nt unde r R ule s 60(b)(1), (3), (4), a

nd (6); a n d by a p ply ing la c he s. W e disa gre e .

“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on a ppe a l from

a ba nkruptc y c ourt de novo. W e inde pe nde n tly re v ie w the ba

n kruptc y c o urt’ s de c ision a

nd do not give de fe re nc e to the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inations.” In reSax man , 325 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d ). W e re vie w R ule 60(b) m otions for re lie f from judgm e nt for a

buse of disc re tion. C

ase y 2v . Albe rtson’s Inc
. , 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th C ir. 2004). Howe ve r, we re vie w de

nov o whe the r a

judgm e nt is void unde

r R ule 60(b)(4). Fid. N

at. Fin., Inc . v . Frie dman , 803 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th C ir. 2015). To de te rm ine whe the r the c ourt
a buse d its disc re tion in a

na l y z ing R

ule 60(b), we c o nside r “ whe t he r the tria l c ourt ide n tifie d the c orre c t le ga l rule to a pply to the re lie f re que ste d ” ; a nd “ whe t he r the tria l c ourt’ s a

pplic a tion of thec orre c t le ga l sta nda rd wa s (1) ‘ illogic a l,’ (2)

‘ i m pla usible ,’ or (3) without ‘ support in infere nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the fa c t s in the re c ord.’ ” Brandt v . Am. Bank e rs Ins. C o. of Fla ., 653 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Unite d State s v . Signe d Pe r

s. C h e c k N o. 730 of Yubran S. Me s le , 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010)). 1. The B ankruptc y

C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C B C N’ s m otion for re lie f unde r R

ule 60(b)(1), whic h a l lows a c ourt to se t a side a judgm e nt ba se d on “ e xc usa

ble ne gle c t.” To de te rm ine whe the r the judgm e nt should be se t
a side unde r R

ule 60(b)(1), we we igh: (1) theda n ge r of pre

judic e to the opposing pa rty , (2) the le ngth of the de l ay and its poten tia l im

pa c t on judic ia l proc e e dings, (3) the re a son for the de la y and whe the r it wa s within the re a sona ble c ontrol of the
m ova nt, a nd (4) whe the r the m o va

nt a c te d in good fa ith. Pione e r Inv . Se rv s. C o. v . Brunsw ic k

Assoc s. Ltd. P’ship , 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

3As for the first fa c tor, the re c ord supporte d the B ankruptc y C ourt’ s finding that Native Ene rgy

would be pre

judic e d. As for the se c ond fa c tor, the c ourt found that C B C N wa s a

ware of the proc e e dings a nd wa ite d e i ght m onths to file suit, whic h is a

signific an t de la

y . H arv e st v . C astro , 531 F.3d 737, 747 (9th C ir. 2008) (finding a de la y “ substa ntia l” whe n the m ova

nt did not “ c onta c t the distric t c ourt until 64 da

y s a fte r the c ourt’ s de a dline ” ). As the B ankruptc y C ourt de te rm ine d,

“ [s] e tting a side the judgm e nt quie ting title on [Native Ene rgy ’ s] prim ary a sse t would re quire the C ourt to re visit ove r a y e ar’ s worth of c a s e a dm inistra tion a nd
a c tivitie s.” As for the third fa c t or, the B an kruptc y C ourt found tha t “ [t] he re c ord
e vide nc e at

tria l, a nd c e rta i nly

the pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e in the re c ord he re ,” showe d tha

t C B C N’ s “ de c ision not to pa rtic ipate in the a dve rsary proc e e ding a

t a ll . . . wa s within C B C N’ s re a sona ble c ontrol.” La stly , the fourth fa c t or wa s “ ne utra l in the c a lc ulus or we igh[e d] only slightly in fa vor” of C B C N be c a use C B C N did not a c t

in ba d fa ith. The c o urt’ s ana ly sis of thefour fa c tors is supporte d by the re c ord a nd is ne ithe r illogic a l nor im pla u s ible . The B an kruptc y C ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

de ny ing C B C N’ s m otion for re lie f ba se d on R ule 60(b)(1).

42. The B ankruptc y C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C B C N’ s m otion for re lie f unde r R

ule 60(b)(3), whic h a l lows a c ourt to se t a side a judgm e nt ba se d on fra

ud. C B C N’ s only

a lle gation of fra

ud is tha t Native Ene rgy

kne wthe transfe r from C B C N to Southe rn C hum a s h Owl C lam “ wa s not a va lid e xe c ution of the Grant de e d.” To e sta blish fra ud upon thec ourt, “ the m oving pa rty m ust prove by c le a r and c onvinc i ng e vide n c e that the [judgm e nt] wa s obta ine d through fraud, m isre p re se ntation, or othe r m isc onduc t a nd the c onduc t c om

pla ine d of pre v e n te d the losing pa

rty from fully and fa irly pre se n ting thede fe nse .” D e Sarac h o v . C

u s tom Food Mac h., Inc
. , 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th C ir. 2000). The re is
no e vide n c e tha

t Native Ene rgy ’ s a c tions pre ve nte d C B C N from pre s e nting its
c a se , or tha

t Native Ene rgy

inte nde d to de c e i ve C B C N or the c ourt. Se e In reM/V Pe ac oc k on C omplaint of Edw

ards , 809 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th C ir. 1987) (finding the m ova nt did not e sta

blish fra ud on the c ourt be c a

use she did not show tha

t the de fe nda n ts’ m i sre pre se ntations “

pre ve nte d he r from

disc ove ring [the truth] . . . or from pre se nting he r c a s e ” or tha t the “ m isre pre se ntations ha d be e n m a de with the inte nt to de c e ive [he r] or he r c ounse l” ). C B C N’ s de c ision not to re spond to the
sum m ary judgm e nt m otion— d e spite be i ng prope rly se rve d a nd a w are of its
e xiste nc e
— is wha

t pre c lude d it from

pre se nting its c a se , not a

ny fra ud by Native

5Ene rgy . Thus thec o urt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing C B C N’ s m otion for
re lie f unde r R

ule 60(b)(3). 3. The B ankruptc y

C ourt did not err by

de ny ing C B C N’ s m otion for re lie f unde r R ule 60(b)(4), whic h a llows thec ourt to se t a side a judgm e nt if it is “

void.”

“ R ule 60(b)(4) a

p plie s only

in the rare insta

nc e whe re a

judgm e nt is pre m ise d
e ithe r on a

c e rta in ty pe of jurisdic tiona l e rror or on a viola tion of dueproc e ss tha

t de prive s a

pa rty of notic e or the opportunity to be he ard.” Unite d

Stude nt Aid Funds, Inc
. v . Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010)
. C B C N a rgue s it wa s de prive d of due proc e ss be c a

use it did not ha

ve notic e of the suit a

nd be c a use the c ourt lim ite d disc ove ry , whic h le ft it “ una b le to de ve lop a

n d prove its c l a im

of fra ud.” B ut C B C N provide d no e v ide nc e of fra ud a nd thus did not e sta

blish how the disc ove ry lim ita t ions de p rive d it of dueproc e s s. In a ddition, Na tive Ene rgy c om ple t e d se rvic e of proc e ss to theprope r a ddre ss, a nd C B C N c onc e de s tha

t it ha d
a c tua l notic e of the suit. Thus, it ha d a full a nd fa ir opportunity

to de ve l op its c a se and pre se nt e vide n c e . The B ankruptc y C ourt did not err in finding C B C N wa s not de prive d of due proc e ss a nd tha t the judgm e nt wa s not void unde r R u le 60(b)(4). 4. The B ankruptc y

C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C B C N’ s m otion for re lie f unde r R

ule 60(b)(6), whic h a l lows a judgm e nt to be se t a ide for

“ any o the r re a son tha

t justifie s re lie f.” “ A pa

rty se e king to re -ope n a

c a se unde r 6R

ule 60(b)(6) ‘ m

ust de m onstra

te both injury

an d c irc um sta

nc e s be y ond his c ontrol that pre ve nte d him

from proc e e ding with the prose c ution or de fe nse of the a c tion in a prope r fa shion.’ ” De lay v . Gordon , 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting C

mty . De ntal Se r

v s. v . Tani , 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th C ir. 2002)). In
a ddition, the m otion “ m

u st be ba se d on grounds othe r tha n those liste d in the pre c e ding c la

use s” of R

ule 60(b) a

nd is “ re se rve d

for ‘ e x tra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s .’ ” Lafarge C

onse ils Et Etude

s , S.A. v . K

aise r C e me nt & Gy

p sum C orp. , 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th C ir. 1986) (quoting C ore x C orp. v . Unite d State

s , 638 F.2d 119, 121 (9th C ir. 1981)). C B C N brought thesa m e a lle gations of fra

ud
and se rvic e unde r R

ule 60(b)(6) tha

t it did under the othe r R

ule 60(b) c la

use s. R e ga rdle ss, no e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s pre ve nte d it from

re sponding to the
e ntry of de fa ult or sum

m ary judgm e nt proc e e dings. TheB ankruptc y C ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in de ny ing C B C N’ s R ule 60(b)(6) m otion. 5. La stly , C B C N a

rgue s the c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

a pply ing la c he s. First, the re is no indic a tion tha t the ba n kruptc y c ourt re lie d on la c he s whe n re a c hing its de c ision. Re g ardle ss, e ve n if it did, it wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion.

“ The de fe nse of la c h e s ‘ re quire s proof of (1) la c k of dilige n c e by the pa rty a ga inst whom the de fe nse is a s se rte d , a nd (2) pre judic e to the pa

rty a sse rting the de fe nse .’ ” State of K an. v . State

of C olo. , 514 U.S. 673, 687 (1995) (quoting C o ste llo v
. 7Unite d

State s , 365 U.S. 265, 282 (1961)). C B C N wa s not diligent in pursuing its
c a se , a nd Na tive Ene rgy

would be pre

judic e d by

the de la y . The judgm e nt of the Distric t C ourt is AFFIRM E D
.

8