Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan M. FORBES; Elke J. Forbes, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 15-55185
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Thomas D. Coker, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Valerie Laris-sa Makarewicz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—-U.S. Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, Bruce R. Ellisen, Marion E.M. Erickson, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ivan M. Forbes, Pro Se
    Elke J. Forbes, Pro Se'
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ivan M. Forbes and Elke J. Forbes appeal pro se from the district court’s default judgment in the government’s action seeking to reduce to judgment federal income tax assessments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to enter a default judgment, Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion for default judgment because the possibility of prejudice to the government, merit of the government’s substantive claim, sufficiency of the complaint, unlikely possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, and fact that the default was not due to excusable neglect outweighed the amount of money at stake and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors to consider in determining whether to enter default judgment). We reject as meritless the Forbes’ contentions that the district court lacked jurisdiction, the government lacked authority to bring the action, and the district court judge or the government committed misconduct.

The government’s September 10, 2015 motion for sanctions in the amount of $8,000 is granted in part. Because “the result of [the] appeal is obvious and the arguments of error are wholly without merit,” we order the Forbeses to pay the government’s just damages and single or double costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38; Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986). But we refer the determination of an appropriate amount of just damages and costs to the Appellate Commissioner, who shall have the authority to enter an order awarding just damages and costs to the government. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.