RANCHO MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation v. RAY GRAY and LINDA GRAY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANCHO MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAY GRAY and LINDA GRAY,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 12-56362
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00358-BEN-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellee Rancho Mountain Properties (“Rancho”) seeks to recover amounts
owing on a guaranty executed by Appellants Ray and Linda Gray. The district
court entered default against Linda Gray after she failed to appear, granted
FILED
JUN 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

summary judgment against Ray Gray, and entered a final judgment against the
Grays in the amount of $10,622,705.64. The Gray’s arguments on appeal are
meritless (if not frivolous). We affirm.
I
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Linda Gray’s two
motions to vacate entry of default, nor by granting Rancho’s motion for default
judgment. Linda Gray has no meritorious defense to the claim against her. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), 60(b)(1); TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691,
696–97 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Egelhoff v. Egelhoff
ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001).
II
The district court correctly granted summary judgment against Ray Gray.
Rancho presented undisputed evidence in support of each element for a breach of
guaranty, and Ray Gray did not show there was a genuine dispute as to any
material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood
Apartments, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). Indeed, Ray Gray’s
argument that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to file a response to
the motion for summary judgment, which Gray’s counsel copied and pasted almost
verbatim from his original motion for an opportunity to respond, is frivolous. The
2

-- 2 of 3 --

district court did in fact allow Ray Gray to file a response, and the very same
attorney that represents Ray Gray in this appeal filed that response. Ray Gray’s
remaining arguments regarding alleged disputed facts are similarly meritless.
III
Finally, Ray Gray’s argument that the district court “should not have
considered” the supplemental declarations and exhibits that Rancho filed with its
reply in support of the motion for summary judgment is similarly frivolous. The
district court specifically stated in its order that “the Court d[id] not rely on the
supplemental declaration and filings offered with [Rancho’s] Reply,” and Ray
Gray has presented no evidence to the contrary.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --