Chris Martino, Ii v. Glen A. Chapman

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).
JS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS MARTINO, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLEN A. CHAPMAN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-15268
D.C. No. CV-06-02407-MHM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Chris Martino, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JS/Research 08-15268 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion for default judgment, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986),
and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martino’s motion
for default judgment in light of the lack of merit of the substantive claim, the
insufficiency of the complaint, the amount of money at stake, and the possibility
that Chapman would dispute the material facts. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth
factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment);
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam)
(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment where the substantive claims lacked merit).
Martino’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --