Opinion ID: 3047727
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff Misconduct

Text: Appellants also argue that the default judgment should be set aside because of misconduct and misrepresentation by the trusts. Appellants, however, have provided no evidence of 3272 EMPLOYEE PAINTERS’ TRUST v. ETHAN ENTERPRISES misconduct by the trusts, let alone the “clear and convincing” evidence required to support such a charge. See De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). [11] As described above, the trusts served notice of the default on the defendants in the same manner as they had served previous pleadings. Nothing in the record suggests that the trusts defrauded the court with respect to their claims. Similarly, no evidence suggests that the trusts misrepresented the contributions owed to them. Rather, it was appellants’ failure to participate in the litigation that forced the court to rely on indirect payroll information to calculate the amount of the judgment. Prior to the default, the district court entered an order to compel inspection of payroll records, but the copy of the order sent to defendants was returned to the court as undeliverable. So it was defendants who were responsible for the absence of direct data concerning the contributions due. [12] Given the lack of evidence of misconduct or misrepresentation, appellants fail to meet their burden under Rule 60(b)(3). AFFIRMED.