N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OAKLEY, INC ., a

W a shington c orporation; JAM ES JANNAR D, a n individua l, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s,
v. SEAN M IC HAEL M C W ILLIAM S, an individua l, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And GER ARD M C W ILLIAM S, an individual ; M AR Y M C W ILLIAM S, an individual, De fe nda

nts. No. 12-56963 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-07666-DDPR NB
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 De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL E D
AUG 15 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.Subm itte d August 12, 2014 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . Se an M c W illia

m s a ppe a l s pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s fina l judgm e nt
awarding da

m a ge s to Oa

kle y , Inc . (“ Oakle y ” ) and Ja m e s Ja nna rd. On a ppe a l, M c W i llia m s a lso c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s prior gra nt of pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt to Oa

kle y and Ja nna rd. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291
and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to Oa

kle y an d Ja nna rd on the ir libe l c la im an d did not ignore any

e vide n c e in the re c ord. The
e vide nc e firm ly e s ta

blishe s tha

t M c W illia

m s inte ntiona lly

se nt ove r a

m illion fa l se , unprivile ge d, de rogatory , a nd ha ra ssing e -m a ils to Oa

kle y , Ja n na rd, a nd othe r third pa rtie s and tha

t suc h e -m a ils se riously

injure d the re puta

tion a n d c ha ra c te r of Oakle y an d Ja nna rd. Se e C a l. C iv. C ode §§ 45–45a ; se e also Smith v . Maldonado , 85 C a l. R ptr. 2d 397, 402 (C a l. C t. App. 1999). Although “ the truth of the offe nsive sta

te m e nts or c om

m unic a tion is a

c om ple te de fe nse a g a inst c ivil lia bility ” in libe l a c tions, Smith , 85 C a l. R p tr. 2d a t 403, the re c ord la c ks suffic ie nt

** 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). -2-e vide nc e to c re a te a ge n u ine issue of m a t e ria l fa c t on the truth of M c W illia m s’ s sta te m e nts or on a

ny othe r e le m e nt of the libe l c la im
. The distric t c ourt a l so c orre c tly gran te d sum

m ary judgm e nt to Oa

kle y and Ja nna rd on M c W illia

m s ’ s c ounte rc la im

for inte n tiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s. Apa

rt from M c W illia

m s’ s own se lf-se rving a

nd unc orroborate d de c la ra tions, whic h a

re insuffic ie nt to a

ve rt sum m ary judgm e nt, Bank

Me lli Iran v

. Pahlav i , 58 F.3d 1406, 1412–13 (9th C ir. 1995), the re is no e vide n c e showing tha t Oakle y or Ja n na rd e nga ge d in a

ny e xtre m e and outra g e ous c onduc t tha t a c tua lly or proxim a te ly

c a use d M c W illia

m s se ve re e m otiona l distre ss, s e e C o nle y v . Roman C atholic Arc hbishop of S.F. , 102 C a l. R ptr. 2d 679, 683 (C a l. C t. App. 2000). Ac c ordingly , no ge nuine issue of fa c t re m a ins for tria l on the c ounte rc la im , and
sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt’ s e n try of a de fa ult sa nc tion a g a inst M c W illia

m s
wa s ne ithe r an a

buse of disc re tion nor a

viola tion of his due

proc e ss rights. M c W i llia m s’ s willful re fusa l to a

ppe ar for tria l de la

y e d re solution of this c a se ,

“ inte rfe re d with the[distric t] c ourt’ s m ana ge m e nt of its doc ke t in one of the busie s t distric ts in thec ountry ,” and wa ste d the tim e and e ffort of Oakle y and Ja nna rd, who we re pre pa

re d to proc e e d with tria l a s sc h e dule d on the ir re m a ining c la im s. Se e Dre ith v

. N

u Image , Inc
. , 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th C ir. 2011). Unde r the s e

-3-c irc um s ta

nc e s , the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re solution of litiga tion, the distric t c o urt’ s ne e d to m ana g e its doc ke t , a nd the risk of pre

judic e to Oa

kle y and Ja nna rd strongly

support the d i stric t c ourt’ s de fa ult sa nc tion. S e e id. B a se d

on our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord, we are not le ft with a “ de finite an d

firm
c onvic tion tha

t [de fa u l t] wa s c le arly

outside the a c c e pta

ble ra nge of sa

nc tions.” Id. (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de fa

ult
and, ba se d on the e xte nsive and protra c te d c onduc t at issue , its m one ta ry judgm e nt
a ga inst M c W illia

m s. AFFIRM E D.

-4-