Alexander Baker v. Clair Marlo

Ninth Circuit

Alexander Baker v. Clair Marlo

698 F. App'x 381

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 2017

Docket16-56893

StatusUnpublished

This text of 698 F. App'x 381 (Alexander Baker v. Clair Marlo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander Baker v. Clair Marlo, 698 F. App'x 381 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Clair Mario appeals from the district court’s judgment in a copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. New-Gen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (grant of motion to enter default judgment); Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 663 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (denial of motion to set aside entry of default and denial of motion to set aside default judgment). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders entered on August 8, 2016, September 23, 2016, and December 1, 2016.

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Clair Mario appeals from the district court’s judgment in a copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. New-Gen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (grant of motion to enter default judgment); Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 663 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (denial of motion to set aside entry of default and denial of motion to set aside default judgment). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders entered on August 8, 2016, September 23, 2016, and December 1, 2016.

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 F. App'x 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-baker-v-clair-marlo-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack