Amtrust Bank v. Rex Lewis, 687 F. App'x 667

Background

Post-judgment proceedings following an adverse judgment against Rex Lewis; district court entered various orders (asset-freezing injunction, discovery orders) and Lewis sought relief and modifications after final judgment.
Lewis moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from judgment and alternatively under Rule 59 and Rule 60(d), asserting matters he had not raised earlier (including contract language and IRA issues).
Lewis sought modification of an asset-freezing injunction to permit monthly IRA withdrawals up to $15,000; the injunction otherwise barred transfers of assets over $5,000 without court approval.
The district court sanctioned Lewis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) for willful post-judgment discovery violations, precluding him from introducing evidence that his residence was exempt or contractually protected from execution.
The district court struck Lewis’s reply memorandum on objections to a magistrate judge’s report for filing without leave in violation of local rules.
Lewis appealed denial of Rule 60 relief, denial of injunction modification, the Rule 37 sanction regarding his residence, and the striking of his reply; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on all counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion	Lewis argued relief warranted despite delay; relied on substantive grounds not raised earlier	Appellees argued motion was untimely and should be treated as Rule 59 reconsideration	Court: Rule 60(b) motion untimely; finality weighed heavily; arguments could have been raised earlier; denial affirmed
Merits of Rule 60(b) relief	Lewis claimed mistake/excusable neglect and extraordinary circumstances prevented appeal	Appellees: no such mistake or extraordinary circumstances; arguments were available pre-judgment	Court: No basis under Rule 60(b)(1) or (6); alternative merits denial affirmed
Fraud on the court (Rule 60(d))	Lewis asserted appellees committed fraud by not bringing contract language earlier	Appellees: contract language could and should have been raised at summary judgment	Court: No fraud on the court; Lewis could have raised issue earlier; Rule 60(d) relief denied
Modification of asset-freezing injunction (IRA withdrawals)	Lewis sought permission to withdraw up to $15,000/month from IRA	Appellees: injunction necessary to prevent evasion of discovery and frustrate enforcement; risk of dissipation	Court: Denial of modification upheld; injunction reasonable, does not declare IRA subject to execution, permits transfers < $5,000
Rule 37 sanctions re: residence exemption	Lewis argued residence was exempt/contractually protected and sanctions were improper	Appellees: Lewis willfully hid information and evaded discovery, justifying severe sanctions	Court: Sanctions proper; district court did not clearly err in finding willful evasion and reasonably rejected lesser sanctions
Striking of reply memorandum	Lewis filed a reply to objections without seeking leave	Appellees: local rules prohibit replies without leave; striking appropriate	Court: Striking was within district court’s discretion under local rules and inherent power

Key Cases Cited

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.) (jurisdictional principles for appeals of post-judgment orders)
Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir.) (timeliness standard for Rule 60 motions)
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.) (Rule 59(e) and reconsideration standards)
Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.) (requirements for Rule 60(b) relief)
In re Lavender, 180 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (fraud on the court standard)
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Noble Metals Int’l, Inc., 67 F.3d 766 (9th Cir.) (consideration of wrongdoing in injunction decisions)
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferm, 909 F.2d 372 (9th Cir.) (access to funds to pay counsel in injunction context)
Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.) (appropriateness of severe sanctions where deception likely to continue)
Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir.) (prejudice from discovery evasion justifying sanctions)
Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402 (9th Cir.) (district court’s discretion to enforce local rules)
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court’s interpretation of local rules)
Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (challenges to injunctive relief must rest on grounds that could not have been raised earlier)