New Show Studios, LLC v. Greg Howe

696 F. App'x 271
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 17, 2017
Docket16-56906
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 F. App'x 271 (New Show Studios, LLC v. Greg Howe) 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
New Show Studios, LLC v. Greg Howe, 696 F. App'x 271 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Greg Howe appeals pro se from the district court’s entry of default judgment against him in this defamation action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to order default judgment. Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering default judgment against Howe because within one week of trial he attempted to terminate his attorney, failed to retain replacement counsel, and failed to notify in advance the district court and opposing counsel that he would not attend trial, which resulted in substantial prejudice to appellees. See Ringgold Corp v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that district court has broad latitude to impose the sanction of default for non-attendance at trial).

Denial of Howe’s requests to transfer venue was not an abuse of discretion because Howe unreasonably delayed in seeking transfer until after the date scheduled for the commencement of trial. See Allen v. Scribner, 812 F.2d 426, 436 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth standard of review and upholding district court’s denial of motion to transfer venue “notwithstanding possible inconvenience to the witnesses” because “the transfer of this case undoubtedly would have led to delay”).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
696 F. App'x 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-show-studios-llc-v-greg-howe-ca9-2017.