N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ANC HO M O UNTAIN PR O PER TIES, INC ., a De la ware c orpora tion, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R AY GR AY a nd LINDA GR

AY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 12-56362

D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00358-B ENB LM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d June 6, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TR OTT, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Appe lle e R anc h o M ounta in Prope rtie s (“ R anc ho” ) se e k s to re c ove r a m ounts owing on a

gua ra nty e xe c ute d by

Appe lla nts R a y an d Linda

Gray . The distric t c ourt e nte re d de fa

ult a ga inst Linda

Gray a fte r she fa ile d to a

ppe a r, gra nte d 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2014 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).sum

m ary judgm e nt a ga inst R ay

Gray , a nd e nte re d a

fina l judgm e nt a ga i nst the Gra y s in the a m o unt of $10,622,705.64. The Gray ’ s a rgum e n ts on a

ppe a l a re m e ritle s s (if not frivolous). W e a ffirm . I The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Linda

Gray ’ s two m otions to va c a te e n t

ry of de fa ult, nor by

granting R anc ho’ s m otion for de fa ult judgm e nt. Linda

Gray ha s no m e ritorious de fe nse to the c la i m a g a inst he r. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 55(c ), 60(b)(1); TC I Grp. Life Ins. Pla n v. Knoe bbe r, 244 F.3d 691, 696–97 (9th C ir. 2001), ove rrule d in pa rt on othe r grounds by

Ege lhoff v. Ege lhoff e x re l. B re ine r, 532 U.S. 141 (2001). II The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt a ga inst R ay Gra y . R anc ho pre se nte d undispute d e vide nc e in support of e a c h e l e m e nt for a bre a c h of gua ra n ty , a nd R ay Gray did not show the

re wa s a ge nuine dispute a s to a ny m a te ria l fa c t. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 56(a ); Spinks v. Equity R e side ntia l B ria

rwood Apa rtm e nts, 90 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 453, 475 (C a l. C t. App. 2009). Inde e d, R ay Gray ’ s argum e nt tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d in re fusing to a llow him to file a re sponse to the m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, whic h

Gray ’ s c ounse l c o pie d a

n d pa ste d a lm ost ve rba t im from his origina l m otion for a n opportunity

to re spond, is frivolous. The 2distric t c o urt did in fa c t a llow R ay Gray to file a re sponse , a

nd the ve ry

sa m e a ttorne y tha t re pre se nts R a

y Gray in this a ppe a l file d tha

t re sponse . R ay

Gray ’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts re ga

rding a lle ge d dispute d fa c ts a re sim ila rly m e ritle ss. III Fina lly , R ay

Gray ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t

c o urt “ should not ha

ve c onside re d” the supple m e nta l de c la ra tions a nd e xhibits tha

t R a n c ho file d with its re ply in support of the

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt is sim

ila rly frivolous. The distric t c o urt spe c ific a l ly

sta te d in its orde r tha

t “ the C o urt d[id] not re ly on the supple m e nta l de c la

ra tion a nd filings offe re d with [R anc ho’ s] R e ply ,” and R ay Gra y ha s pre se nte d

no e vide nc e to the c o ntra ry . AFFIRM E D.

3