FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW J. TASHJIAN, No. 12-55967
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:99-cv-11621-RNB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOUMNA J. FERNANDEZ, AKA
Ghenwa Habbas, AKA Gina Habbas;
YOUMNA GHAMLOUCHE,
Defendants,
And
RABIH S. KHALIFE, Sr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
ANDREW J. TASHJIAN, No. 12-56052
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:99-cv-11621-RNB
v.
JOUMNA J. FERNANDEZ, AKA
Ghenwa Habbas, AKA Gina Habbas;
RABIH S. KHALIFE, Sr.,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Defendant,
And
YOUMNA GHAMLOUCHE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Rabih Khalife, Sr. and Youmna Ghamlouche appeal the district court’s order
denying: (1) Khalife’s motion to set aside a renewal of judgment; and
(2) Ghamlouche’s motion to vacate that renewal. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Khalife’s and Ghamlouche’s attacks on the form of Andrew Tashjian’s pro
se renewal application have no support in circuit law. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729
F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (liberal-construction rule “relieves pro se litigants
from the strict application of procedural rules and demands that courts not hold
missing or inaccurate legal terminology or muddled draftsmanship against them”).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
To the extent that the district court amended the docket to reflect its intent to renew
judgment against Khalife and Ghamlouche, the court did not abuse its discretion
under Rule 60(a). See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078-80 (9th Cir.
2012); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987). Khalife and
Ghamlouche provide no valid grounds for vacating the renewal of judgment. See
Fidelity Creditor Serv., Inc. v. Browne, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 854, 858 (Ct. App. 2001).
AFFIRMED.