Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
PROWICK INVESTMENTS, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Carmelo Genoese ZERBI, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 1991.* Decided May 13, 1991.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, GOODWIN and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
Carmelo Genoese Zerbi and Savina Zerbi appeal the district court's denial of their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside a default judgment entered against them in this action. The Zerbis contend that the district court erred in concluding that (1) their culpable conduct led to the default, and (2) they lacked any meritorious defense. We review for an abuse of discretion, Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986), and we affirm.
A district court has discretion to deny a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a default judgment if the defendant's culpable conduct led to the default or the defendant has no meritorious defense. Meadows v. Dominican Republic, 817 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976 (1987).
Here, the district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because it found that the Zerbis willfully failed to provide requested discovery, despite a court order compelling them to answer certain interrogatories. The court's conclusion that the default was entered as a result of the Zerbis' culpable conduct is supported by the record. Moreover, the Zerbis' allegations that they feared for their safety in the United States and that the plaintiff submitted a fraudulently signed document to the court are wholly unsubstantiated. These bare allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the Zerbis have a meritorious defense. See Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988) (simple assertions that the movant has a meritorious defense are insufficient to justify upsetting the judgment). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Meadows, 817 F.2d at 521.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, the Zerbis' request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3