Deborah Perciballi v. Henry L. Ng ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH PERCIBALLI, Co-executors of No. 17-55679
the Estate of Richard Nieto; LOUIS NIETO,
Jr., Co-executors of the estate of Richard D.C. No. 8:08-cv-01168-JVS-AN
Nieto,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEMORANDUM*
v.
HENRY L. NG,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
GILBERT BURCIAGA; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2018**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Attorney Henry L. Ng appeals pro se from the district court’s entry of
default judgment against him in this diversity action alleging state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
grant of a default judgment. Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388,
1391 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs’ motion
for default judgment because the sufficiency of the complaint, the merits of
plaintiffs’ substantive claims, and the fact that the default was not due to excusable
neglect weighed in favor of entering default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782
F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors in determining whether to
enter default judgment).
We reject as without merit Ng’s contentions that the district court lacked
diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims, and that the
district court was biased against him.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied as
2 17-55679
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-55679