Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNEST C. ALDRIDGE, No. 23-3104 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00379-MMD-EJY Plaintiff - Appellant, and MEMORANDUM* CLARENCE M. WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, EIN #XX-XXXXXXX; ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP, XX-XXXXXXX; KRISTA J. NIELSON, Bar #10698; ANTHONY R. SASSI Esquire, Bar #12486; LAUREL I. HANDLEY, Bar #9576, Defendants - Appellees.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE No. 23-3120 ASSOCIATION, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02366-MMD-EJY Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLARENCE M. WILLIS, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Defendant - Appellant, and ERNEST C. ALDRIDGE, CREATIVE SOLUTIONS 4 U, LLC, JORGE M.

LUNA, IRENA DAMIANOVA, THOMAS E. WILLIS, GERI L. MCKINNON, Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated cases, Ernest C. Aldridge (Appeal No. 23-3104) and Clarence M. Willis (Appeal No. 23-3120) appeal pro se from the district court’s post-judgment contempt order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of civil contempt sanctions. Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986). We dismiss Appeal No. 23-3104 and affirm in Appeal No. 23-3120.

Appeal No. 23-3104 Because Aldridge did not sign the opening brief or file a separate opening brief by the due date, his appeal is dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 23-3104, 23-3120 Appeal No. 23-3120 The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the 2023 action filed by Willis and Aldridge challenging the judgment entered on April 26, 2018, as a sanction for Willis and Aldridge’s contempt of court. See Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (under a court’s inherent powers it “may, among other things, dismiss a case in its entirety”).

Contrary to Willis’s contentions, Fannie Mae had standing to assert its claims. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (setting forth the requirements for standing).

A prior panel of this court affirmed the district court’s underlying judgment entered on April 26, 2018, and we will not reconsider that decision. See Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Willis, 817 F. App’x 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2020); S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court . . . .”).

Aldridge’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26 in Appeal No. 23-3104; Docket Entry No. 25 in Appeal No. 23-3120) is denied as unnecessary.

23-3104: DISMISSED.

23-3120: AFFIRMED.

3 23-3104, 23-3120