J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A V. STACY MONIZ, No. 16-17350 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17350 D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00512-DKWBMK v. MEMORANDUM* STACY MONIZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Stacy Moniz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion for reconsideration in JPMorgan Chase’s diversity action alleging a breach of contract claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moniz’s motion for reconsideration because Moniz failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting JPMorgan Chase’s Rule 60(a) motion and amending the judgment to clarify that its dismissal of JPMorgan Chase’s action was without prejudice because the amended judgment reflects the original intent of the court. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and noting that “Rule 60(a) allows a court to clarify a judgment in order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision” (internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 16-17350

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.