The Hermetic Order of the Gold v. David Griffin, No. 08-16904 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN, INC., No. 08-16904 D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00432-JSW Plaintiff-counter-defendant Appellee, MEMORANDUM * v. DAVID J. GRIFFIN, Defendant-counter-claimant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 6, 2010 ** San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: REINHARDT and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, Senior District Judge.*** David John Griffin appeals from the district court s order denying his counter-motion to set aside or enforce a settlement agreement entered into with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Griffin s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).1 Only extraordinary circumstances justify relief under [Rule 60(b)(6)]. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int l Ass n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1129 (9th Cir. 1982)). While the repudiation or complete frustration of a settlement agreement can constitute grounds to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), see Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410, Griffin has not demonstrated that such circumstances exist in this case. Instead, there are simply disagreements over the proper interpretation of the terms of the settlement agreement. *** The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 The district court properly reviewed the magistrate s report and recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). -2- Griffin failed to enunciate a coherent legal argument in his brief to this court as to why the district court s holding that Golden Dawn did not violate any substantive terms of the settlement agreement is incorrect. Griffin has therefore abandoned any such challenge. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir. 2001) ( Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned. ). To the extent that Griffin raises other issues in his brief, those challenges are waived for the same reason. AFFIRMED. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.