Tuwanna Thompson, an individual v. Karen Civil, in her individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TUWANNA THOMPSON, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAREN CIVIL, in her individual and
official capacity as an officer/member of
Live Civil, LLC; CHRISTIAN EMILIANO,
in his individual and official capacity as an
officer/member of Live Civil, LLC; LIVE
CIVIL, LLC, a California limited liability
company; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive;
KARENCIVIL.COM, a business entity form
unknown,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55955
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05690-RSWL-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55955
TuWanna Thompson appeals from the district court’s default judgment in
her diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Columbia Props.
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2006) (denial of attorney’s fees);
Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (damages
award). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award
Thompson attorney’s fees and additional reputational damages because Thompson
failed to prove sufficiently her entitlement to the fees and additional damages. See
Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (explaining that,
although upon default the factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true, the
amount of damages must be proved); Travis v. Brand, 523 P.3d 380, 383 (Cal.
2023) (explaining that, in California, “litigants are ordinarily responsible for
paying their own attorney’s fees”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part Thompson’s
motion for reconsideration because Thompson failed to demonstrate a basis for
reconsideration of the attorney’s fees decision. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. V. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) and 60(b)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55955
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --