KEVEN HUTSON V. ME CAPITAL LLC, No. 17-15101 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVEN HUTSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15101 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01921-DGC v. MEMORANDUM* ME CAPITAL LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Keven Hutson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for * 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). failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hutson’s action without prejudice after Hutson failed to comply with the district court’s orders regarding preparation for the pre-trial conference, and failed to appear at the pretrial conference, despite being warned that failure to comply with court orders may result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hutson’s motion for reconsideration because Hutson failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). We reject as meritless Hutson’s contentions that the district court was required to first address the issue of personal jurisdiction and had no authority to 2 17-15101 act until service was complete. AFFIRMED. 3 17-15101
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.
