Goodwin et al v. Beckley

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Notice sent to 9th Cir). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DALE GOODWIN, JOHN & NANCY
LINDBERG, and ANN WALCH,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00140-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
WAYNE NILES BECKLEY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Request for Certification to the Court of
Appeals. (Dkt. 5). For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the request.
BACKGROUND
In August 2010, a default judgment was entered against defendant Wayne
Beckley in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on plaintiffs’ claims
for fraud and breach of contract. Default Judgmt,. Case No. 1:09-cv-594-BLW, Dkt. 32.
Then in March 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho denied
Beckley’s Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment. See Order, Dkt. 5-1. Beckley has
appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to this Court, and now asks the Court to certify
the appeal directly to the Ninth Circuit. Beckley wants the Ninth Circuit to determine

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

whether the bankruptcy court was correct when it held that Idaho state law determines the
preclusive effect of the August 2010 default judgment. Id.
ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), the Court of Appeals may have jurisdiction from all
final judgments entered by the Bankruptcy Court. Before the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction, the district court must certify that: (1) the judgment “involves a question of
law as to which there is no controlling decision of the court of appeals…or of the
Supreme Court of the United States;” (2) the judgment “involves a question of law
requiring resolution of the conflicting decisions;” or (3) an immediate appeal from the
judgment “may materially advance to progress of the case or proceeding in which the
appeal is taken.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(2)(A)(i)-(iii).
Beckley generally says there is no controlling Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court
authority and, further, that there is a “multitude of conflicts in decisions between Idaho,
neighboring jurisdictions, and federal decisions calling for a resolution from the Court of
Appeals.” Dkt. 5, at 2. But he has not cited any authority to support these sweeping
assertions. He also overlooks Supreme Court authority holding that the claim-preclusive
effect of a federal diversity judgment is governed by federal common law, which looks to
the law of the state where the district court is located unless that law is incompatible with
federal interests. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008); Semtek Int’l Inc. v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 US 497, 508 (2001).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

In this case, the judgment in question was rendered by the United States District
Court in Idaho, exercising diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and
breach of contract. Therefore, Idaho law is controlling when determining whether issue
preclusion applies. In Idaho, the general rule is that once a district court enters judgment,
all issues which were or could have been litigated are precluded. See Waller v. States
Dept. of Health and Welfare, 192 P.3d 1058, 1062 (Idaho 2008). In cases of a default
judgment, preclusion applies absent fraud or collusion. Id.
Beckley has failed to show (1) the absence of controlling decisions of the Ninth
Circuit or the Supreme Court, (2) conflicting decisions on the legal issue in dispute, or (3)
that an immediate appeal would advance the progress of this case. The Court will
therefore deny the request for certification.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Request for Certification to the Court of Appeals (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.

DATED: August 6, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3