United States of America v. Ivan M. Forbes; Elke J. Forbes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
IVAN M. FORBES; ELKE J. FORBES,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 15-55185
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03884-DDP-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ivan M. Forbes and Elke J. Forbes appeal pro se from the district court’s
default judgment in the government’s action seeking to reduce to judgment federal
income tax assessments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to enter a default judgment,
* 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
DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-55185
Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s
motion for default judgment because the possibility of prejudice to the
government, merit of the government’s substantive claim, sufficiency of the
complaint, unlikely possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, and fact that
the default was not due to excusable neglect outweighed the amount of money at
stake and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782
F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors to consider in determining
whether to enter default judgment). We reject as meritless the Forbes’ contentions
that the district court lacked jurisdiction, the government lacked authority to bring
the action, and the district court judge or the government committed misconduct.
The government’s September 10, 2015 motion for sanctions in the amount
of $8,000 is granted in part. Because “the result of [the] appeal is obvious and the
arguments of error are wholly without merit,” we order the Forbeses to pay the
government’s just damages and single or double costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed.
R. App. P. 38; Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1986). But we
refer the determination of an appropriate amount of just damages and costs to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-55185
Appellate Commissioner, who shall have the authority to enter an order awarding
just damages and costs to the government. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --