22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T483,MEMORANDUM Chris Martino, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for default judgment, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir.1986), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martino’s motion for default judgment in light of the lack of merit of the substantive claim, the insufficiency of the complaint, the amount of money at stake, and the possibility that Chapman would dispute the material facts. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion for default judgment where the substantive claims lacked merit). . Martino’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b5,

MEMORANDUM

Chris Martino, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for default judgment, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir.1986), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martino’s motion for default judgment in light of the lack of merit of the substantive claim, the insufficiency of the complaint, the amount of money at stake, and the possibility that Chapman would dispute the material facts. See id. at 1471-72 (setting forth factors that courts may consider in determining whether to enter default judgment); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion for default judgment where the substantive claims lacked merit).

. Martino’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.