Case Name: Helen Lili HORVATH, dba HW Associates, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TONEY, dba UpTop Group, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and Cava Cup Soccer Tournament; Americas Basketball International, dba ABI Slam Foundation, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-31
Citations: 551 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 13-55013
Parties: Helen Lili HORVATH, dba HW Associates, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TONEY, dba UpTop Group, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and Cava Cup Soccer Tournament; Americas Basketball International, dba ABI Slam Foundation, Defendants.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 343–343

Head Matter:
Helen Lili HORVATH, dba HW Associates, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony TONEY, dba UpTop Group, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and Cava Cup Soccer Tournament; Americas Basketball International, dba ABI Slam Foundation, Defendants.
No. 13-55013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 31, 2013.
Helen L. Horvath, Alpine, CA, pro se.
Anthony Toney, Birmingham, AL, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Anthony Toney appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him in a breach of contract action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Toney's motion to vacate the default judgment because Toney failed to show that such relief was warranted. See Am. Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth factors to apply when considering a motion to vacate a default judgment, any of which are sufficient to deny the motion).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Plaintiffs request for judicial notice, set forth in her answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.