Cole Family Partnership v. Lipstein

Full title: COLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 17, 1997

108 F.3d 1384 (9th Cir. 1997)

Opinion

108 F.3d 1384 (9th Cir. 1997) COLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan LIPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant,and Philip S. Sindler; Fairbanks Financial Group, Inc., a California Corporation; Jon Rose; Princeton Fine Art, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Princeton Tarryall, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Protoqwik, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; Robert NMN Anderson; William H. Smith; Financial Group, Inc., a Colorado Corporation; Bernard Sindler; Adams Securities, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; James William Adams; Stewart Adams; Al Barney; Center For Advanced Asset Protection, a California Corporation; Rose Maresa Molinar; Barry Molinar; Fred Jager, Defendants. No. 94-56288. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 17, 1997

Submitted March 11, 1997.

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, No. CV-92-01019-JNK; Judith N. Keep, Chief Judge, Presiding.

S.D.Cal.

AFFIRMED.

Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and THOMAS, 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 provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

Alan Lipstein appeals pro se ¹ the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion to vacate a stipulated judgment entered against him after he breached a settlement agreement with the Cole Family Partnership ("Partnership"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States ex rel. Familian Northwest, Inc. v. RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21 F.3d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

1 Lipstein's appellate counsel withdrew from this case on September 23, 1996.

A district court may relieve a party from a final judgment for, among things, excusable neglect. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1); RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21 F.3d at 955-56. However, "[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide [adequate] grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)." Engleson v. Burlington N. R.R., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Lipstein has only proffered instances of purported attorney negligence to support his contention that he demonstrated excusable neglect, we conclude that the district court properly denied Lipstein's Rule 60(b)(1) motion to set aside the stipulated judgment in favor of the Partnership. See id. at 1043-44; see also RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21 F.3d at 956 ("Even a liberal interpretation of 'excusable neglect' will not excuse every error or omission in the conduct of litigation.").

AFFIRMED. ²

2 We do not address Lipstein's contentions regarding a purported conflict of interest that Lipstein experienced with his trial attorney because he did not present these issues to the district court. See United States v. Cupa-Guillen, 34 F.3d 860, 863-64 (9th Cir.1994). We conclude that Lipstein's contention that the district court erred by not advising him of his trial attorney's purported conflict of interest is without merit.

See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.