William Eason v. Indymac Federal Bank Fsb;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM EASON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17710
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01423-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Eason appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a default
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17710 2
judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Eason’s motion to
enter default judgment against two defendants based on the Eitel factors. See id. at
1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to
enter default judgment and noting that “default judgments are ordinarily
disfavored”); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 1980) (per
curiam) (no abuse its discretion in denying motion for default judgment where
substantive claims lacked merit).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --