MARC DAGUPION V. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO., No. 12-15771 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARC DAGUPION, No. 12-15771 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00120-SOMKSC v. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO., a subsidiary of National City Bank, now known as PNC Bank, National Association; JOHN DOES, 1-10; JANE ROES, 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS OR OTHER ENTITIES, 1-10; LOAN NETWORK LLC, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Kevin S. Chang, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2013** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. * 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). Marc Dagupion appeals the orders of the district court awarding discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions or denying Dagupion s subsequent motion to reconsider. See SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010); Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). The court properly awarded reasonable expenses, including attorney s fees under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) following Dagupion s failure to attend his court-ordered deposition on November 2, 2011. Dagupion s argument that he was excused from attending the deposition based on the representations of opposing counsel is not supported by the record. The defendants provided a detailed account of their fees and costs resulting from the failure to attend, and the court awarded a reasonable sum. In moving for reconsideration, Dagupion did not present any newly discovered evidence, show that the district court s decision was clear error or manifestly unjust or demonstrate an intervening change in controlling law. See Platforms Wireless, 617 F.3d at 1100. AFFIRMED. 2

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.