ANDREW TASHJIAN V. JOUMNA FERNANDEZ, No. 12-55967 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW J. TASHJIAN, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-55967 D.C. No. 2:99-cv-11621-RNB v. MEMORANDUM* JOUMNA J. FERNANDEZ, AKA Ghenwa Habbas, AKA Gina Habbas; YOUMNA GHAMLOUCHE, Defendants, And RABIH S. KHALIFE, Sr., Defendant - Appellant. ANDREW J. TASHJIAN, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-56052 D.C. No. 2:99-cv-11621-RNB v. JOUMNA J. FERNANDEZ, AKA Ghenwa Habbas, AKA Gina Habbas; RABIH S. KHALIFE, Sr., * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Defendant, And YOUMNA GHAMLOUCHE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 5, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Rabih Khalife, Sr. and Youmna Ghamlouche appeal the district court s order denying: (1) Khalife s motion to set aside a renewal of judgment; and (2) Ghamlouche s motion to vacate that renewal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Khalife s and Ghamlouche s attacks on the form of Andrew Tashjian s pro se renewal application have no support in circuit law. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (liberal-construction rule relieves pro se litigants from the strict application of procedural rules and demands that courts not hold missing or inaccurate legal terminology or muddled draftsmanship against them ). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). To the extent that the district court amended the docket to reflect its intent to renew judgment against Khalife and Ghamlouche, the court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 60(a). See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078-80 (9th Cir. 2012); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987). Khalife and Ghamlouche provide no valid grounds for vacating the renewal of judgment. See Fidelity Creditor Serv., Inc. v. Browne, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 854, 858 (Ct. App. 2001). AFFIRMED.

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.