N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DAVID M EDNANSKY, individua lly and M AR TINE M EDNANSKY, individua lly , De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 13-55662

D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01307-M M AB GS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 1, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and HAW KINS an d M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. David a nd M artine M e dna

nsky a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to theUnite d Stat e s in a n e je c tm e nt a

nd tre spa ss suit 

# FIL ED SEP 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).brought by

the gove rnm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . 1. The M e dna

nsky s we re prope rly se rve d with the c om

pla int through the i r attorne y . The distric t c ourt the re fore prope rly e xe rc ise d pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r the M e d

na nsky s. The Unite d State s se rve d the M e d na nsky s by de live ring a c opy of the c om

pla int “ to a

n a ge nt a uthoriz e d by a ppointm e nt or by

la w to re c e ive se rvic e of proc e s s.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4(e )(2)(C ). The M e dna n sky s re ta ine d the ir c ounse l to re pre s e nt the m in a suit the y file d

pro se a ga inst Fore s t Se rvic e offic ia ls. The ir attorne y -c lie nt re lationship with the ir c ounse l c ontinue d in this c a se , whic h wa s file d c onte m

pora ne ous to theothe r litiga

tion a nd involve d m any

of the sa m e pa rtie s and re late d fa c ts. Se e Damron v . He r zog , 67 F.3d 211, 214 (9th C ir. 1995). The ir c ounse l signe d a

n d a c knowle dge d se rvic e of the c o m pla int, a nd a s suc h be c am e attorne y of re c ord for the M e dna nsky s. S.D. C a lif. Loc a l. R . 83.3(g)(1). The ir c ounse l ne e d not ha ve ha d e xpre ss a

uthority to a c c e pt se rvic e of proc e ss on the M e dna

ndsky s be ha lf. In reFoc us Me d ia Inc . , 387 F.3d 1077, 1082–83 (9th C ir. 2004). The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e x e rc ising pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Se eRio Props., Inc . v . Rio Inte r n. Inte r link

, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th C ir. 2002). TheM e dna nsky s’ due proc e s s c la im

wa s not tim e ly

a sse rte d

2and is the re fore wa i ve d. Ins. C orp. of Ire land, Ltd. v . C

ompagnie de s Baux ite s de Guine e , 456 U.S. 694, 703–05 (1982). 2. The distric t c ourt did not err by granting sum

m ary judgm e nt to the Unite d State s. R e vie w e d de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s e je c tm e nt a

nd da m a ge s de c isions we re prope r, a s the gove rnm e nt showe d the re wa s no ge nuine disputea s to a ny m ate ria l fa c t a

nd e ntitle m e nt to judgme nt a s a m atte r of la

w. Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 56(a ); Szaje r v . C

ity of L.A. , 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th C ir. 2011). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in its rulings on the M e d na nsky s’ m otions to re c use . Se e P e sne ll v . Arse nault , 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th C ir. 2008). TheM e dna nsky s re late no c re dible e vide nc e of bia s on thepa rt of e ithe r distric t judge . The y have the re fore fa ile d to m e e t the sta tutory sta nda rd for re c u sa l. S

e e28 U.S.C . §§ 144, 455. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the M e d na nsky s’ la s t R

ule 60 m otion tha

t ide ntifie d for the first tim e le ga l pre c e de nt that the y c ould ha ve pre se nte d e arlie r. S

e e K ona Ente rs., Inc . v . Estate of Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th C ir. 2000). 5. The fa c t tha

t the M e dna

nsky s we re pursuing the ir own litiga tion a ga inst fe de ra l offic ia ls did not ba r the Unite d State s from

filing this e

je c tm e nt a

nd tre spa ss suit. Se e , e .g. , He c k le r v . C hane y , 470 U.S. 821, 838 (1985) (re c ogniz ing 3that

the de c ision to institute

an e nforc e m e nt a c tion is “ c om m i tte d to a ge nc y disc re tion[.] ” ). 6. The M e dna

nsky s’ c ha lle nge s to thedistric t c ourt’ s R ule 54(b) a

nd sta y pe nding a

ppe a l rulings a

re without me rit a

nd othe rwise are now m oot. Ea rlie r de c isions a

bout theM e dna

nsky ’ s re que st for a

sta y are now la

w of the c a s e and will not be

re visite d. Me rritt v . Mac k e y , 932 F.3d 1317, 1320 (9th C ir. 1991). 7. The M e dna

nsky s’ m otion for R

ule 11 sa nc tions is without m

e rit.

“ R ule 11 doe s not a

pply to a p pe lla te proc e e d ings.” C

oote r & Ge ll v . Hartmarx C orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 406 (1990). The Unite d State s is not subje c t to sa nc tions on a ppe a l unde r Fe d e ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 38 be c a

u s e the gove rnm e nt did not file this a

ppe a l.

AFFIRM E D.

4