Case Explained: AULD-SUSOTT, ET AL. V. GALINDO, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 Docket: 1:20-cv-00270-LEK-RT The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders denying the appellants’ third motion to disqualify Judge Kobayashi for actual bias, their motion to void judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), and granting prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees to the appellees. The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded reconsideration of the judicial disqualification arguments, as the panel had twice previously affirmed similar denials and the appellants failed to present new specific arguments regarding bias. Regarding the Rule 60(b)(4) motion, the court applied de novo review and concluded the judgment was not void because the constructive trust was imposed against the transferee, Galindo, rather than Daniel Susott, meaning personal jurisdiction over Susott was not required, and his due process rights were not violated as he retained title subject to a trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 636-16 due to substantial delay caused by the appellants’ fraudulent transfer of property two days after a prior judgment. Finally, the court affirmed the attorneys’ fees award under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 607-14.5, finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that the appellants’ defenses of adequate consideration and lack-of-creditor status were frivolous given they had been previously litigated and affirmed. As a result, the district court’s orders remain in effect, and the appellants are liable for the awarded interest and fees. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.