RANCHO MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES V. RAY GRAY, No. 12-56362 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 10 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANCHO MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-56362 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00358-BENBLM v. MEMORANDUM* RAY GRAY and LINDA GRAY, Defendants - Appellants. 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 * 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). 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
