Bianco v. Rolle Newton & Co. , 366 F. App'x 821 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFRED J. BIANCO, as Plan No. 03-35431
Administrator to the Estate of Gaston &
Snow, D.C. Nos. CV-02-00142-BLW
CV-02-094
Plaintiff - Appellee, CV-02-095
v.
ROLLE NEWTON & COMPANY, MEMORANDUM *
Trustee of the Coastal Foreign Security
Trust,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 2, 2009 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Rolle Newton & Company (“Rolle Newton”) appeals an order by the district
court granting summary judgment in favor of Pana-Tek, Inc. (“Pana-Tek”) and
denying Rolle Newton’s cross motion for summary judgment. We review an order
granting summary judgment de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson,
363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004), and a finding concerning joinder for abuse of
discretion. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d
861, 879 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal because Rolle Newton’s notice of
appeal became effective after the district judge denied its motion for
reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Pana-Tek’s subsequently filed
motion for an order supplementing the order on reconsideration did not affect this
court’s jurisdiction. See id.
Any rights Rolle Newton may have claimed were extinguished upon Pana-
Tek’s purchase of the properties at the Marshal’s sale. A judgment against the
initial owners of White Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral was perfected and
recorded prior to the conveyances at issue. Rolle Newton’s claim to ownership
results from a post-judgment chain of conveyances and is subject to the judgment
lien. See First Nat’l Bank of Lewiston v. Hays, 61 P. 287, 288 (Idaho 1900); see
2
also Fulton v. Duro, 687 P.2d 1367, 1372-73 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984), aff’d 700 P.2d
14 (Idaho 1985).
Rolle Newton has no standing to challenge Pana-Tek’s water rights at White
Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral. If, as Rolle Newton argues, the water rights were
severed prior to recording of the judgment liens, then transfers to Rolle Newton did
not include those rights. If the water rights were not severed, then they were
subject to the judgment lien and were conveyed to Pana-Tek at the Marshal’s sale.
Rolle Newton is thus a third party to any dispute concerning the water rights and
lacks standing. See, e.g., Serena v. Mock, 547 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008).
The district court acted within its discretion in finding that Pana-Tek joined
all interested parties. Under Idaho law, a trust is not a separate legal entity, see
Indian Springs, LLC v. Indian Springs Land Inv., LLC, 215 P.3d 457, 464 (Idaho
2009), so Pana-Tek properly named the trustees in their official capacity, rather
than individual trusts. Moreover, Meglon Domestic Non Grantor Trust does not
retain an interest in the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3