T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T A M A R T E S S L E R , a n in d iv id u a l, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A N Z A D O K , a n in d iv id u a l, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 55564 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 5 6 9 5 - R- RC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , S IL V E R M A N , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In th is d iv er sity ac ti o n , D an Z ad o kap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o v ac at e adefaul tj ud gm entent er ed i n favor of A pp el l ee T am arT es sl er . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 1. W e r evi ew for a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to s e t a s id e ad e f au lt 

# FI LED OC T 7 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55564 2 ju d g m e n t. TC

I G roup L i

f e I ns. P lan v. Kno ebber , 24 4 F . 3d 69 1, 69 5 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ TCI

” ) . W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. I n s e e ki ng t o va c a t e the de f aul tj udgm e nt , Z a dok s ubm i tt e d ade c l a r a t i on st at i ng thathe di d n otre ce i ve se rvi ce of proces s and thathe has no roo m m at e, contra di ct i ng the process se rver ’ s r ec ei pt . T he re cord ref l ec t s nei ther the evi dence n o rth e la w o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt b a s e d its d e c is io n to d e n y Z a d o k ’s m o tio n to s e ta s i de the de f

aul tj udgm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourtm a y ha ve de ni e d the m ot i on by c ons i de r i ng Z a dok’ s e vi de nc e a nd the f a c t or s s e tf

orth i n Falk v . A l len , 739 F . 2d 461 ( 9th C i r . 1984) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , ora l t e rna t i ve l y i n S. E . C . v . I nte rne t Solut i ons f

or B us i ne s s I

nc . , 50 9 F . 3d 11 61 , 11 65 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). H ow ever , because w e are u n ab le to d isce rn eith erth e leg al o r th e f ac tu al b as es fo r th e d istrict co u rt’s d e c is io n , w e a r e u n ab le to a s s e s s w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . Me s le , 615 F . 3d 1085, 1091 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( i n a s s e s s i ng abuse of di sc re t i on , thi s C ou rtm ustdet erm i ne fi rs tw hether the di stri ctcourt i dent i fi ed the corre ctl egal rul e t o app l y and se cond w hether the appl i ca t i on of that ru le w a s illo g ic a l, im p lau s ib le , o rw ith o u t s u p p o rt in th e r e c o r d ) ; s e e a l s o TCI, 244 F . 3 d at6 9 6 (“ [I] n ap p l yi n g th e g en eral t erm s o f R u l e 6 0 (b ) t o d efau l tj u d g m en t s, th i s Co u rth a s e mp h a s i z e d th a ts u c h j u d g me n t s a r e ‘ ap p r o p r i a t e o n l y i n e x tr e me circ u m stan ce s; a c as e s h o u ld , w h en ev erp o ss ib le, b e d ec id ed o n th e m er it s.’”10- 55564 3 ( quot i ng Fa lk , 73 9 F . 2d at46 3)). A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at e and re m and for further p r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith o u rd is p o s itio n . T h e p a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.