LEWIS v DUFF et al, No. 13-16181 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD W. LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-16181 D.C. No. 3:99-cv-00386-LRHWGC v. DAVID ANTONUCCIO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant, LOUIS MORTILLARO; et al., Defendants, and LINDA DUFF; TYRONE DUFF, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted April 22, 2015 ** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Linda and Tyrone Duff appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment imposing monetary sanctions against them under its inherent power. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. In prior Appeal No. 08-17314, this court rejected the Duffs’ contentions that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying action and to sanction them. We do not revisit those arguments here. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider matters resolved in a prior appeal before another panel in the same case). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief, including the Duffs’ request that Lewis or his counsel be sanctioned. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The Duffs’ request of February 14, 2014, that appellee’s answering brief be rejected for failure to comply with the court’s January 22, 2014 order, is denied. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 13-16181 The Duffs’ request for a decision on their appeal is granted. AFFIRMED. 3 13-16181

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.