Protective Life Insurance Company, a Tennessee corporation v. Robert P. Mosier, as Receiver for the Trustee of The Luz Cervantes Irrevocable Trust

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Tennessee corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT P. MOSIER, as Receiver for the
Trustee of The Luz Cervantes Irrevocable
Trust, and as Receiver for the Trustee of
The Lupe Martinez Irrevocable Trust,
Defendant - Appellee.
Nos. 10-55918, 10-55919
D.C. Nos. 2:09-cv-08781-PSG-E,
2:09-cv-07512-PSG-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District
FILED
DEC 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for***
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
10-55918 & 10-55919 2
Judge.***
In these consolidated appeals, Protective Life Insurance Company
(“Protective Life”) appeals from the district court’s judgment denying its motions
for leave to sue receiver Robert T. Mosier (“Receiver”) nunc pro tunc, and
granting the Receiver’s motion to hold Protective Life in violation of a preliminary
injunction and strike its two lawsuits. The appeals arise from a Securities and
Exchange Commission enforcement action, in which the district court appointed
the Receiver and issued a preliminary injunction imposing a blanket stay of
litigation against the Receiver unless a party received leave of court. Protective
Life filed two lawsuits against the Receiver without first obtaining leave from the
district court.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir. 2008) (the
abuse of discretion standard applies to a district court’s decisions concerning
management of litigation); SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC, 397 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2005) (“A district court’s decision concerning the supervision of an
equitable receivership is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”); In re At Home Corp.,

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55918 & 10-55919 3
392 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (bankruptcy court’s entry of a nunc pro tunc
approval of a motion reviewed for abuse of discretion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Protective Life’s
requests for nunc pro tunc relief because Protective Life’s failure to obtain leave of
court to sue the Receiver prior to filing its lawsuits was not due to error or
inadvertence by the district court. See United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005,
1010 (9th Cir. 2000) (the power to enter an order nunc pro tunc “is limited to
making the record reflect what the . . . court actually intended to do at an earlier
date, but which it did not sufficiently express or did not accomplish due to some
error or inadvertence”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Protective Life’s
lawsuits without prejudice after determining that Protective Life had violated the
court’s preliminary injunction without good cause. See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc.
v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (“All federal
courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and
courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.”).
Protective Life’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Protective Life’s Request to Take Judicial Notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --