Case Name: Padam Kumar KHANNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Baljit RANDHAWA and Jagjit Singh Randhawa, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-20
Citations: 388 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 08-17249
Parties: Padam Kumar KHANNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Baljit RANDHAWA and Jagjit Singh Randhawa, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Padam Kumar KHANNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Baljit RANDHAWA and Jagjit Singh Randhawa, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 20, 2010.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Padam Kumar Khanna, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants conspired with the State Bar of California to deprive him of his attorney's license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for 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 Khanna's motion for default judgment given the lack of merit to the substantive claims, the insufficiency of the complaint, and the amount of money at stake. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment); 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).
Khanna's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.