
    Andrew J. TASHJIAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joumna J. FERNANDEZ, aka Ghenwa Habbas, aka Gina Habbas; Youmna Ghamlouche, Defendants, and Rabih S. Khalife, Sr., Defendant-Appellant. Andrew J. Tashjian, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joumna J. Fernandez, aka Ghenwa Habbas, aka Gina Habbas; Rabih S. Khalife, Sr., Defendant, and Youmna Ghamlouche, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 12-55967, 12-56052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 5, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 12, 2013.
    Mitchel J. Ezer, Esquire, Law Office Of Mitchel J. Ezer, Pacific Palisades, CA, Joshua P. Friedman, Esquire, Joshua P. Friedman and Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      John Anthony Gladych, Gladych & Associates, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rabih Khalife, Sr. and Youmna Gham-louche appeal the district court’s order denying: (1) Khalife’s motion to set aside a renewal of judgment; and (2) Gham-louche’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”). 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, 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 854, 858 (2001).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     