VICTOR A. SEGOVIA, Esquire v. Bach Construction, Inc.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR A. SEGOVIA, Esquire,
Appellant,
v.
BACH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 09-16317
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05767-VRW
MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR A. SEGOVIA, Esquire,
Appellant,
v.
JANINA ELDER,
Trustee - Appellee.
No. 09-16320
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05768-VRW
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, Chief District Judge, Presiding
FILED
SEP 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted July 15, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Victor Segovia appeals from a district court decision affirming the
bankruptcy court’s partial grant of Bach Construction, Inc.’s motion for summary
judgment. Segovia challenges the bankruptcy court’s refusal to enter default
judgment against Bach Construction and argues that the bankruptcy court erred in
its application of res judicata.
We review a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and findings of
fact for clear error. In re Pace, 67 F.3d 187, 191 (9th Cir. 1995). We review a
decision regarding entry of default judgment for abuse of discretion. DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.
The facts of the case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
Segovia argues that the bankruptcy court erred in refusing to enter default
judgment against Bach Construction when it filed a late answer to his cross-
complaint. Segovia makes no showing that he was prejudiced by the court’s

-- 2 of 3 --

1 We deny Bach Construction’s January 8, 2010 request that we take
judicial notice of our prior decision.
3
refusal to enter default judgment, and so that refusal was not an abuse of discretion.
See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924–25 (9th Cir. 1986).
Segovia next argues that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied res
judicata. Res judicata precludes subsequent suits regarding the same claims, raised
between the same parties, when a previous suit has proceeded to a final judgment,
on the merits. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). Here,
all of the elements of res judicata are met. The exact same claim was brought
between the same parties in a prior action that proceeded to the Ninth Circuit after
a final judgment on the merits. See Segovia v. Bach Constr., 346 F.App’x 156 (9th
Cir. 2009). 1
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --