N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LAW R ENC E SAKS, M .D., c /o M arvin Garde ns, DB A R e c onstruc tive Surge ry Affilia te s, DB A R e c o nstruc tive Surge ry Assoc iate s; M ADISON PARK SUR GER Y AND LASER

C ENTER , DB A M a dison Park Surge ry

Affilia te s, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. INTER NATIONAL LONGSHOR E & W AR EHOUSE UNION-PAC IFIC M AR ITIM E ASSOC IATION B ENEFIT PLANS; ILWU-PM A W ELFARE PLAN TR USTEES; ILW

U-PM A W ELFARE PLAN, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56148 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02885-JAK-E
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 John A. Kronsta dt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED DEC 03 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 : W . FLETC HER and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s a nd C HR ISTENSEN, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. Lawre nc e Sa k s , a

form e r pla stic surge on, a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Inte rna tiona l Longshore& W a re h ouse UnionPa c ific M aritim e Assoc iation B e ne fit Pla ns (ILWU-PM A) on Saks’ s quantum
me ruit c la im s for ove r $5 m illion in unpa id m e dic a l tre a tm e nts. Sa ks’ s form e r busine ss, M a dison Pa

rk Surge ry

and La se r C e nte r (M a dison Pa rk) is a lso na

m e d a s
a pla intiff in this ac tion, a

nd a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of its m otion to se t
a side de fa ult. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e n t

is re vie we d de nov o . Se e , e .g., Szaje r v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th C ir. 2011) (c i tation
om i tte d). Saks c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t his c l a im s a

re ba rre d by the unc le a

n ha nds doc trine , a

nd ra i se s thre e distinc t a

rgum e nts for the first tim e on
a ppe a l: (1) tha

t his fa i l ure to c om

ply with thenotic e re quire m e nts of a Pre fe rre d Provide r Agre e m e nt (PPA) wa s not willful; (2) tha t this fa ilure wa s unre late d to his quantum me ruit c la im

a s re quire d by

C a lifornia ’ s unc le an ha

nds doc trine ; an d (3) that ILWU-PM A wa s not pre judic e d by the fa ilure
. W e ge n e ra lly “ [do] not
c onside r an issue n o t pa sse d upon be low.” Dodd v . Hood Riv e r C ty . , 59 F.3d 852,

** The Honora

ble Da na L. C h riste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2863 (9th C i r. 1995) (c i tation a n d quota tion m arks om itte d). An issueis ge ne ra lly de e m e d wa ive d if it is not “ ra ise d suffic ie n tly

for the tria l c ourt to ruleon it.” W hittak e r C orp.v . Ex e c uair C

orp. , 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th C ir. 1992) (c ita tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d). While Saks points to se v e ra l brie f, va gue c om

m e nts in the re c ord re late d to his be lie f that he wa s fulfilling his c ontra c tua l obliga tions unde r the PPA, the se sta

te m e nts we re not suffic ie nt to ra ise the issue of willfulne ss. Sa

ks a l so doe s not e xpla in why the othe r two a

rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l a re not wa ive d. W e c onc lude tha t Saks ha s wa ive d the se
argum e nts. W e do not norm a lly sit to re solve issue s tha

t we re not pre s e nte d to the distric t c o urt. Se e Dodd, 59 F.3d a t 863; W hittak e r C orp , 953 F.2d a

t 515. Eve n if Sa

ks ha d not wa ive d the se argum e nts, his quantum me ruit c la im is ba rre d by the doc trine of unc le an ha nds. W e a

pply C a lifornia

la w. In de te rm ining whe the r a pa rtic ula r m isc onduc t c onstitute s unc l e an ha nds, C a lifornia

c ourts
c onside r (1) ana l ogous c a se la w, (2) the nat

ure of the m isc o nduc t, a

nd (3) the
re lationship of the

m isc onduc t to the c la im e d injurie s . K

e ndall-J ac k son W ine ry , Ltd. v . Supe rior C

o urt , 90 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 743, 749 (C a l. C t. App. 1999). Additiona lly , “ the m isc onduc t m ust pre judic i a lly a ffe c t the rights of thepe rson
a ga inst whom

the re lie f is sought so tha t it would be ine quita

ble to gra n t suc h
re lie f.” Id. (c ita

tion a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d). While the distric t c ourt

3c onside re d pre j udic e , the nature of the m i sc onduc t, a n d the re lat ionship of the
m isc o nduc t to the c l a im e d injurie s, it did not a ddre ss a na l ogous c a se la

w. Howe ve r, we m ay

a ffirm a gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t on a

ny ba sis supporte d in the re c ord. Vide o Softw a re De ale r s Ass’n v . Sc hw a rze ne

gge r , 556 F.3d 950, 956 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d). Unde r the first prong of a na logous c a s e la

w, the re doe s not ne e d to be a c a se pre c ise ly on point. S

e e Unilogic

, Inc ., v . Burroughs C

orp. , 12 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 741, 744 (C a l. C t. App. 1992). C a lifornia ha s long pe rm itte d a

n unc le an ha

nds de fe nse to be susta ine d on the ba s is of bre a c h of c ontra c t. Se e

, e .g., Sk e tc hle y v . Lipk in , 222 P.2d 927, 934 (C a l . C t. App. 1950) (“ Equity doe s not a id him who ha s bre a c he d his a gre e m e nt.” ) R e ga rding the se c ond prong, Sa k s’ s
m isc o nduc t— spe c ific a l l y , his fa ilure to re port his c rim ina l c onvic tions, suspe n sions of his me dic a l lic e nse , a nd loss of sta ffing privile ge s while c ontinuing to c o lle c t pa

ym e nts for tre a tm e nts provide d to ILW U -PM A m e m

be rs— c onstitute s unc le an ha

nds. The third a

nd fina l prong is a lso m e t, be c a use Sa ks’ s fa i lure to
re port unde r the te rm s of the PPA is dire c tly re late d to his c la im

for pa y m e nts from ILW U-PM A. Also, there c o rd is c le a r that ILWU-PM A wa s pre judic e d by
c ontinuing to m

a ke ne arly a m i llion dolla

rs in pa y m e nts to Sa

ks a nd M a d ison Pa

rk

4be c a

use it wa s una

ware of the te rm ination of thePPA. The doc trine of unc le an ha nds a pplie s a nd Saks is ba

rre d from any re c ove ry of his q uantum me ruit c la im
. 1 W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to se t a side de fa

u lt for a buse of disc re tion. S

e e Brandt v . Am. Bank

e rs Ins. C o. of Fla. , 653 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita

tions omitte d). In a sse ssing whe the r the distric t c o urt a buse d its disc re t ion in de ny ing a m otion to se t a side de fa ult, we re vie w de nov o whe the r it ide n tifie d the c orre c t le ga l rule
. Id. W e ne xt de te rm ine whe the r the a pplic a tion of the c orre c t le g a l sta

n d ard wa s (1) illogic a l , (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re nc e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord. Id. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly ide ntifie d Fe d . R . C i v. P. 55(c ) a s the rule to
a pply whe n se tting a side e ntry

of de fa ult. 2 U nde r this rule , a

c ourt m ay

se t a side an e ntry of de fa ult for “ g o od c a

use .” The distric t c ourt rightly sta t e d tha t the burde n of e sta blishing good c a

use fa lls on them oving pa rty . Se e Franc hise

Holding II, LLC v . Huntington Re

staurants Group, Inc
. , 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th C ir. 2004).

1 W e a lso note tha

t the re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t ILWU-PM A ha s any outsta nding bills, le

t a lone $5 m illion worth. 2 The distric t a lso a

n a ly z e d the m otion to se t

a s ide de fa

ult unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b). This pa

rt of the distric t c ourt’ s re a soning wa s in e rror, be c a use R ule 60(b) only

a pplie s to re lie f from

a fina l judgm e nt, orde r, or proc e e ding. At the tim e of ruling the re ha d

be e n no fina l judgm e nt a ga inst M a d ison Pa rk, only an e ntry of de fa ult. 5The distric t c ourt a l so c orre c tly e num e ra t e d the fa c tors tha t m u st be c onside re d to
e va luate whe the r “ g ood c a use ” e xists: (1) whe the r the pa rty se e king to se t a side de fa ult e n ga ge d in c ulpa

b le c onduc t tha

t le d to the de fa

ult; (2) whe the r the pa

rty
se e k ing to se t a side de fa

ult ha d a m e ritorious de fe nse ; a

nd (3) whe t

he r se tting a side de fa ult would pre

judic e the non-m oving pa rty . Id. a t 925–26. The c ourt c onside re d a ll thre e fa c tors a n d c onc lude d tha

t (1) tha t M a dison Park wa s c u lpa

ble for its own de fa

ult, (2) tha

t M a d ison Pa

rk la c ke d a

m e ritorious de fe nse , a nd (3) tha t se tting a side the de fa

ult would pre

judic e ILWU-PM A. The distric t c o urt’ s a

n a ly sis on a ll thre e “ good c a use ” fa c tors wa s logic a l, pla usible , a nd supporte d by e vide nc e in the re c ord. The re wa s no a buse of disc re tion in de ny ing the m otion to se t a side de fa ult. AFFIRM E D.

6