R. Dean Harman v. Eva Harper

Good Law
7 F.3d 1455·93 Daily Journal DAR 13792·1993 WL 437664·27 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 306·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 28303
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 199392-16156California1,479 words

Opinion

Opinion

Canby, J.

Defendant Eva Harper appeals an order of the district court correcting an earlier judgment and denying Rule 60(b) relief from that judgment. Insofar as Harper’s appeal challenges the earlier judgment, entered after remand from this court, we dismiss the appeal. To the extent that the judgment challenges the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, we affirm.

FACTS

This action was originally brought by Dean and Lynn Harman against Eva and Brainard Harper, and Harper Realty, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of state and federal securities laws, as well as state-law torts of fraud and misrepresentation. After a bench trial, the district court awarded plaintiffs judgment for compensatory and punitive damages on several counts, along with attorneys’ fees. On appeal, we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a recalculation of damages. Harman v. Harper, 914 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.1990) (amended memorandum). The only claims that survived for purposes of remand were state-law claims against Eva Harper.

On remand, the district court recalculated damages and entered judgment against Eva Harper on February 27,1992. On March 16, 1992, Eva Harper filed a Rule 59(e) motion for new trial or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.