FTC v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 548 F. App'x 450 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 12-55209
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04193-JFW-SS
DAVID KISSI,
MEMORANDUM*
Movant - Appellant,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC., a
corporation; et al.,
Defendants,
ERIC R. CALLOWAY,
Claimant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
David Kissi appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting his
attempt to file a “Motion for Reconsideration” in the Federal Trade Commission’s
action alleging that defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of
standing, and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions regarding
management of litigation. Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 762 n.3, 769 n.11
(9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.
Kissi, who was not a party to the action, lacks standing to challenge the
judgment or to bring this appeal. See Citibank Int’l v. Collier-Traino, Inc., 809
F.2d 1438, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1987) (a nonparty has standing to challenge or appeal
a judgment “only in exceptional circumstances,” which exist where the nonparty
participated in proceedings below and the equities favor hearing the challenge or
appeal). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to file
Kissi’s motion because Kissi submitted it over a year after the case had closed. See
S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (“District courts
have ‘inherent power’ to control their dockets.” (citation omitted)).
DISMISSED.
2 12-55209