Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William EASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17710.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    William Eason, Glendale, AZ, pro se.
    Sid A. Horwitz, Esquire, Carmichael & Powell, P.C., William F. Hyder, William F. Hyder PC, John Maston O’Neal, Ryan Shawn Patterson, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Eason appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Eason’s motion to enter default judgment against two defendants based on the Eitel factors. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment and noting that “default judgments are ordinarily disfavored”); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (no abuse its discretion in denying motion for default judgment where substantive claims lacked merit).

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