Case Name: William EASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-25
Citations: 481 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 10-17710
Parties: William EASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 418–418

Head Matter:
William EASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17710.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
William Eason, Glendale, AZ, pro se.
Sid A. Horwitz, Esquire, Carmichael & Powell, P.C., William F. Hyder, William F. Hyder PC, John Maston O’Neal, Ryan Shawn Patterson, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William Eason appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Eason's motion to enter default judgment against two defendants based on the Eitel factors. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment and noting that "default judgments are ordinarily disfavored"); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (no abuse its discretion in denying motion for default judgment where substantive claims lacked merit).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.