Summary
finding that a default judgment was appropriate where the defendant failed to follow court order to file answer
Summary of this case from Day v. BoyerOpinion
No. 05-36158.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 2, 2007.
Jonathan S. Cohen, Esq., Patricia M. Bowman, Attorney, Richard A. Latterell, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas A. Vandenburgh, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.
Patricia Vandenburgh, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-05117-RHW.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Douglas A. VanDenburgh and Patricia VanDenburgh, appeal pro se from the district court's default judgment in favor of the United States in its action seeking to reduce to judgment unpaid income taxes via foreclosure on real property, and to set aside as fraudulent the transfer of that property from Pactrac Family Trust to the Archtrustee of the Santiago Seafarers Society. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a default judgment against the VanDenburghs after they failed to follow the court's orders to file an answer, failed to rebut the government's evidence establishing the deficiency, and opposed the motion for default judgment by questioning the court's jurisdiction and the authority of the Internal Revenue Service. See id. at 1471-72 (describing factors to be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry of default judgment).
Appellants' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.