Paradise Valley Farms, a Nevada partnership; v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARADISE VALLEY FARMS, a Nevada
partnership; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MARILYN L. GEERTSON; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
PHILLIP W. GEERTSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-15209
D.C. No. CV-04-00759-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1 Geertson appears to treat Paradise Valley Farms as an appellant as well,
though it is not.
Submitted November 2, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER, Senior
District Judge. ***
Phillip Geertson appeals.1 His brief states that the appeal is from an order
dismissing claims, but that cannot be so; there is no such order. Indeed, as the
district court’s orders make clear, no judgment has been entered. Absent a final
order, there is no appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 – which is the only
basis upon which his brief asserts that we may proceed. Even if we ignore this and
look to his notice of appeal, it indicates that Geertson appeals the December 27,
2007 denial of reconsideration. However, we lack jurisdiction on the basis of that
order, too, unless we suppose that what Geertson actually means to appeal was the
underlying order of September 28, 2007. Assuming this is so, and that we have
jurisdiction, see Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phx. Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1420-
21 (9th Cir. 1984), his appeal lacks merit and we affirm.
To the extent Geertson argues that the district court erroneously held him in
contempt, the argument is frivolous. No such order appears. Beyond this, the

-- 2 of 3 --

2 We remind counsel for Geertson that briefs on appeal must comply with
Fed. R. App. P. 28. The statements made, and arguments presented, should
accurately reflect the record. Frivolous appeals and arguments may be sanctioned
under Fed. R. App. P. 38.
court did not abuse its discretion in granting in part the Bank’s motion to compel.
The UCC has no bearing on the matter in dispute. Nor did the court abuse its
discretion in denying Geertson’s motion for reconsideration. It did not clearly err
in any respect; in particular it did not err in failing to require the Bank to comply
with the UCC because the UCC was not relevant to the settlement or the
subsequent orders enforcing it.
Finally, Geertson suggests in reply that the FDIC is not the real party in
interest. This is also frivolous. 2
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --