From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broadway Buildings v. Mincks

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 11, 2001
22 F. App'x 858 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


22 Fed.Appx. 858 (9th Cir. 2001) BROADWAY BUILDINGS II L.P.; Cannon Ridge Partners Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. Ralph W. MINCKS; Estate of John E. Snoddy; Kathleen McCormick; Gregg Jones & Associates, Defendants--Appellees. No. 00-35448. D.C. No. CS-00-00065-RHW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 11, 2001

Submitted December 6, 2001 .

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

This case and a subsequent related appeal, No. 00-56742, arise from the efforts of Appellant Broadway Buildings II ("Broadway") to use a bankruptcy court's order approving its Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan ("Plan Approval") to enforce against Appellees Ralph Mincks et al. (the "Sellers") contracts that Broadway assumed pursuant to the plan. In this appeal, Broadway challenges the Eastern

Page 859.

District of Washington's refusal to register and enforce a judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. We affirm.

Pursuant to our independent obligation to examine jurisdiction, we have reviewed the record and are satisfied that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The challenged order is a full adjudication of the issues at bar. See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir.1990).

The Plan Approval cannot constitute a binding judgment against the Sellers, because they were not parties to the action. Cf. United States v. Yochum (In re Yochum), 89 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard). All of Broadway's other arguments are similarly unavailing.

We address sanctions in a separate order. All other pending motions or requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Broadway Buildings v. Mincks

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 11, 2001
22 F. App'x 858 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Broadway Buildings v. Mincks

Case Details

Full title:BROADWAY BUILDINGS II L.P.; Cannon Ridge Partners Limited Partnership…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2001

Citations

22 F. App'x 858 (9th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Jimenez

I have also reviewed other cases in which courts have declined to register or enforce other federal…