Christie L. Reed v. Federal National Mortgage Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIE L. REED,
Plaintiff,
and
EVERETT CABRERA,
Defendant-cross-defendant-
Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-cross-claimant-
Appellee,
and
EDWARD R. SEIDNER; et al.,
Defendants-cross-claimants.
No. 19-56512
D.C. No. 5:13-cv-00940-VAP-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-56512
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Everett Cabrera appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment
contempt order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a district court’s determination of contempt and imposition of
civil contempt sanctions. General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376,
1379-80 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Cabrera in contempt
because it found by clear and convincing evidence that Cabrera was in violation of
its prior judgment. See Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 454 (9th Cir. 2020)
(contempt is available when the district court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that a party violated a specific and definite order of the court).
We reject as meritless Cabrera’s contention that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to enforce its own judgment. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S.
265, 276 (1990) (explaining that federal courts have inherent power to enforce
their own lawful orders through contempt); United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d
813, 819 (9th Cir. 2008) (a district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its
judgments).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-56512
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal
or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 33) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --