Mary Dureau v. Mark Allenbaugh , 708 F. App'x 443 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      JAN 4 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARY ANN DUREAU,                               No.   16-55715
    Plaintiff-Appellant,        D.C. No. 15-cv-01494-BRO-SP
    v.                                            MEMORANDUM*
    MARK HOWARD ALLENBAUGH,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017
    Pasadena, California
    Before: KELLY,** CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges
    Mary Dureau appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a default
    judgment on a professional negligence claim against her former attorney Mark
    Howard Allenbaugh. We review the denial of a motion for a default judgment for
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
    as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    2
    abuse of discretion and may affirm on any ground finding support in the record. Eitel
    v. McCool, 
    782 F.2d 1470
    , 1471 (9th Cir. 1986).
    To state a claim for attorney negligence in California, a plaintiff must plead
    the existence of proximate causation: i.e., that but-for the attorney’s negligence, the
    plaintiff would have prevailed in a given action. Viner v. Sweet, 
    30 Cal. 4th 1232
    ,
    1241 (2003). In her complaint, Dureau’s allegations of proximate causation were
    wholly conclusory. Dureau therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be
    granted, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009), necessitating the denial of her
    motion for a default judgment. DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 
    503 F.3d 847
    , 854 (9th Cir.
    2007); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 
    123 F.3d 1353
    , 1370 n.41 (11th Cir.
    1997). The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
    Dureau’s substantive claims lack merit. Eitel v. 
    McCool, 782 F.2d at 1471
    –72.
    Dureau failed on appeal to develop her argument seeking a jury trial and has
    therefore waived it. Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 
    350 F.3d 925
    , 929
    (9th Cir. 2003).
    AFFIRMED.