N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL B UR TSC H ER , an Individua l; C OLDWATER

ENTER TAINM ENT LIM ITED, a

Ne w Ze a la

nd lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny , Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, v. IVAN RENE M OORE, a n Individua l, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, and R UFFTOW

N ENTER TAINM ENT GR OUP, INC ., a

Ne va da C orporation, DB A R uff Town Ente rta inm e nt, Inc . , De fe nda nt. No. 13-56697

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02309-DM GJEM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M . Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

21, 2015 ** 

# FIL ED AUG 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Ivan R e ne M oore a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s de fa

ult judgm e nt in an a c tion a lle g ing c o p yright infringe m e n t a nd bre a c h of c ontra c t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion thee ntry of de fa ult unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 55(a ) and the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to e nte r de fa ult judgm e nt unde r R

ule 55(b). Spe ise r

, K rause & Madole

P.C . v . Ortiz , 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c a te in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing M oore ’ s c ounte rc la im s a fte r M oore fa ile d to a tte nd his deposition, to ke e p the c o urt a pprise d of his c urre nt a d d re ss, a nd to a tte nd m ultiplehe arings. Se e Al-Tork i v . K ae mpe n , 78 F.3d 1381, 1384-85 (9th C ir. 1996) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w and de sc ribing fa c tors to be c onside re d be fore dism issing c ounte rc la im s for la c k of prose c ution unde r Fe d . R . C iv. P. 41(b)). Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt im prope rly orde re d the c l e rk to strikeM oore ’ s answe r and to e nte r de fa

ult a ga inst M oore unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 55(a ) a fte r M oore file d an answe r and, for a tim e , pa rtic ipate d in the litiga

tion. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 55(a ); c f . Dire c t M

ail Spe c ialists, Inc . v . Ec lat C ompute rize d Te c hs., Inc . , 840 F.2d 685, 689 (9th C ir. 1988) (judgm e nt by de fa ult is disfa

vore d whe re de fe nda

nt’ s a c tions de m onstra

te d a “ purpose to de fe nd the suit” (c ita tion om itte d)). Although 1 3 - 5 6 6 9 7 2the d istric t c o urt ha s inhe re n t powe r to im pose the sa

nc tion of de fa

ult for fa i lure to pa rtic i pate in litiga

tion, se e Te le Vide o Sy

s., Inc . v . He ide nthal , 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th C ir. 1987) (pe r c uriam ), in dire c ting de fa ult to bee nte re d unde r R

ule 55(a ), the c ourt did not e xe rc ise its own a uthority and m ake findings justify i ng a de fa ult sa nc tion. Ac c ordingly , we va c a te and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 3 - 5 6 6 9 7 3