EDMUND OLSON V. HAN PHUA, No. 12-15251 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 01 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDMUND C. OLSON, as Trustee of the Edmund C. Olson Trust No.2, U/A Dated August 21, 1985, No. 12-15251 D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00691-ACKRLP Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. HAN KAMAKANI PHUA; ABEL SIMEONA LUI, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Abel Simeona Lui appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Edmund C. Olson, as trustee of the Edmund C. * 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). Olson Trust No. 2, in the Trust s diversity action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with defendants non-consensual liens on real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. We reject Lui s argument that the district court violated his procedural due process rights by deciding the Trust s noticed motion for summary judgment without first issuing a formal scheduling order, where Lui opposed the motion and appeared at the hearing. See Guenther v. Comm r, 889 F.2d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) ( Notice and an opportunity to be heard are the hallmarks of procedural due process. ). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including Lui s arguments concerning res judicata or collateral estoppel and alleged perjury or fraud. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court s order granting the Trust s motion for reconsideration because Lui failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007). We do not have jurisdiction over the portion of the judgment as to Han Kamakani Phua because Phua did not sign the Notice of Appeal. See Fed. R. App. 2 12-15251 P. 3(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(a) is both mandatory and jurisdictional); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a nonattorney does not have authority to appear as an attorney for others). AFFIRMED. 3 12-15251

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.