Summary
In Disibio v. Bank of Oakland, 71 Fed.Appx. 760 (9th Cir. 2003), most of the parties attended a settlement conference and all were represented by counsel at the settlement conference.
Summary of this case from Pittman v. KamenOpinion
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2003.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HILL, T.G. NELSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable James C. Hill, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs and the able arguments of counsel. Appellant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St.Paul) presents no evidence that it relied upon the original mistaken contract. Neither does it present evidence that appellees American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania and Transcontinental Insurance Company acted fraudulently or collusively or with unclean hands. St. Paul is bound by the reformation of the contract.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth in the orders of the district court filed on November 7, 2001, April 3, 2002, and April 9, 2002.
IT IS SO ORDERED.