N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
RAM NE H ARA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. CAL IFO RNIA DE PART M E NT O F CO RRE CT IO NS AND RE H AB IL IT AT IO N, an age nc y of the State of Califor nia, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15860 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00491-JLT
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J e nnife r L. Thurston, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W AL L ACE , SCH RO E DE R and K O Z INSKI , C irc uit Judge s. 1. Ne ha ra a ppe a le d from

the orde r gra

nting re lie f from

judgm e nt unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 60, but hefa ile d to a ppe a l from

the e v ide ntia

ry orde r or from

the fina l judgm e nt. W

he n “ a pa rty se e ks to a

rgue the m e rits of a

n 

# FIL ED MAY25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation 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.pa ge 2

orde r that doe s not a

ppe ar on the fa c e of the notic e of a ppe a l,” we c onside r two fa c t ors: “ (1) whe the r the inte nt to a ppe a l a spe c ific judgm e nt c an be fa i rly infe rre d
and (2) whe the r the a

ppe lle e wa s pre

judic e d by

the m ista ke .” Le v. Astrue , 558 F.3d 1019, 1022–23 (9th C i r. 2009). In a R u le 28(j) le tte r file d a fte r argum e nt, Appe l le e c onc e d e d tha

t Ne ha ra ’ s inte nt c an be fa irly

infe rre d a

nd tha t his mista

ke
c a use d no pre

judic e . W e t

he re fore “ c o nstrue [Ne ha ra ’ s] notic e of a

ppe a l a s m e e ting there quire m e nts” of the Fe de ra l R ule s of Appe lla

te Proc e dure de spite its

“ te c hnic a l e rrors.” Id. at 1024–25. 2. Whe n de pose d, Ne ha

ra de nie d tha

t he he ld a

ny jobs a fte r 2009. Following the

jury ve rdic t in fa

vor of Ne ha

ra , the e xe c utive dire c tor of a he a lthc are fa c i lity in C ana da , Ka

re n C arne s, file d a

de c la ra tion re pre se nting tha

t Ne ha ra worke d for tha

t fa c ility be t w e e n 2011 a nd 2013. Given

this ne w inform ation, Appe l le e m ove d for re l ie f from judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b). Ne ha

ra didn’ t c onte st the t ruth of the C arne s de c la

ra tion, but he

argue d tha

t re lie f from

judgm e nt wa s im prope r be c a

u se the ne winform ation we nt only to da m a ge s a nd not to lia

bility
. The m a gistra

te judge didn’ t a

buse he r disc re t ion by gran t ing the 60(b)
m otion. Ne ha

ra ’ s lie s re ga

rding his pa st e m

p loy m e nt e v inc e a

sc he m e to de fraud the c ourt a

nd c a ll the jury ’ s findings into se rious doubt. It wa s e ntire ly re a sona blepa ge 3

for the m a gistra

t e judge to c onc lude tha

t the outc o m e of the tria l would like ly have be e n diffe re nt if the ne w inform ation ha d be e n ava ila ble to the jury
. Thus, re lie f from judgm e nt wa s prope r unde r R ule 60(b). Se e C oa sta l Tra nsfe r C o. v. Toy ota M otor Sa le s, U.S.A., Inc ., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th C ir. 1987). 3. Ne ha ra argue s tha

t the m a gistra

te judge c om

m i tte d re v e rsible e rror by gran ting Appe lle e ’ s R

ule 60(b) m otion ba se d on inform at ion submitte d in re sponse to a n im prope r subpoe na . Appe lle e se rve d a subpoe na on the C ana dia n he a lthc are fa c i lity we l l a fte r the disc ove ry c ut-off date and without providing notic e to Ne ha ra . Eve n a s sum i ng tha

t the subpoe n a

wa s proc e dura lly

im prope r, Appe lle e ha s c arrie d its burde n of showing tha t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Obre y

v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir. 2005). The re is no doubt tha

t C arne s’ s inform ation would ha v e re a c he d the distric t
c ourt e ve n if no subpoena we re e ve r issue d . C arne s c onta c te d the distric t c ourt with inform a t ion a

bout Ne ha

ra ’ s C ana dia

n e m ploy m e nt on June 5, 2013. C arne s e m a ile d c ounse l for Appe lle e on tha t sa m e da y . The subpoe na

wa s not issue d until June 12, 2013. M ore ove r, we have be e n c ite d no Ninth C irc uit a uthority indic ating that suppre ssion is a

n ava i la ble re m e dy

for an im prope r subpoe na

issue d in a

c ivil
c a se .pa ge 4

4. Ne ha ra ’ s m otion to strike

portions of Appe lle e ’ s a

n swe ring brie f is gran te d in pa

rt a nd de nie d in pa

rt. Footnote2 is stric ke n be c a use it re fe rs without
c ita tion to va rious dispute d fa c t s. Se e 9th C ir. R . 28–2.8. Thefina l pa ra gra ph on pa ge 4 is pe rm issiblebe c a use it e xpla ins this c a se ’ s proc e dura l posture
. AFFIRM E D.