BRUCE KRIEGMAN V. DAVID PERRY, No. 15-35976 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: LLS AMERICA, LLC, Debtor. ______________________________ BRUCE P. KRIEGMAN, solely in his capacity as court appointed Chapter 11 Trustee for LLS America LLC, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-35976 15-35985 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00668-RMP MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID VAN PERRY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. David Van Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). bench trial directing Perry to repay proceeds he received from debtor LLS America, LLC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, and de novo the district court’s conclusions of law. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that the law of the case doctrine applied to its earlier ruling that LLS America, LLC engaged in a Ponzi scheme because Perry failed to establish any basis for departing from the doctrine. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting the limited discretion of a court not to apply the law of the case and setting forth requisite conditions). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perry’s postjudgment motion construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 because Perry failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (grounds for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 126263 (9th Cir. 1993) (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). We reject as unsupported by the record Perry’s contention that service of process was faulty. We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts 2 15-35976 not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). All pending requests and motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 15-35976

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.