Case Name: Elissa GILLESPIE, wife; Sean T. Gillespie, husband, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Dan WISE, aka Danny Wise; Cynthia Wise; et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 08-17144
Parties: Elissa GILLESPIE, wife; Sean T. Gillespie, husband, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Dan WISE, aka Danny Wise; Cynthia Wise; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
Elissa GILLESPIE, wife; Sean T. Gillespie, husband, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Dan WISE, aka Danny Wise; Cynthia Wise; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 08-17144
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Elissa Gillespie, Pro Se
Sean T. Gillespie, Pro Se
Cynthia Wise, Pro Se
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Cynthia Wise appeals pro se from the district court's default judgment in appel-lees' action alleging civil liability for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's order granting a motion for default judgment. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees' motion for default judgment because Wise failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear, despite proof that she was personally served with the summons and complaint. See id. (discussing factors to determine whether to enter default judgment).
We do not consider Wise's arguments, presented for the first time on appeal, challenging the basis for the district court's default judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
By separate order, this appeal has been dismissed as to appellant Dan Wise.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,