Elizabeth Albright Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Company, Inc., a Corporation Robert J. Vile, a Natural Person

Caution
452 F.3d 1097·2006 WL 1843400·65 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 779·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 16836
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 6, 200603-57230California3,260 words

Opinion

Opinion

Clifton, J.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Latshaw appeals the district court’s denial of her motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from a judgment. The judgment resulted from her acceptance of an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Latshaw argues that she accepted the offer under coercion from and based upon fraud by her counsel, who allegedly gave her erroneous legal advice and threatened to resign from the case if Latshaw did not accept the offer. We áre not persuaded and affirm the decision of the district court. Generally speaking, Rule 60(b) is not intended to remedy the effects of a deliberate and independent litigation decision that a party later comes to regret through second thoughts or subsequently-gained knowledge that corrects prior erroneous legal advice of counsel. The district court’s refusal to relieve Latshaw from her decision was not an abuse of discretion.

I. Background

Latshaw hired Trainer Wortham & Company, Inc., an investment management firm, to manage approximately $1.65 million of her assets. Robert Vile, a Trainer portfolio manager, was responsible for handling Latshaw’s account. Latshaw claims that…

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.