Tamar Tessler v. Dan Zadok

MEMORANDUM

In this diversity action, Dan Zadok appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Appellee Ta-mar Tessler. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1921 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691 , 695 (9th Cir.2001) (“TCI”). We vacate and remand.

In seeking to vacate the default judgment, Zadok submitted a declaration stating that he did not receive service of process and that he has no roommate, contradicting the process server’s receipt. The record reflects neither the evidence nor the law on which the district court based its decision to deny Zadok’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The district court may have denied the motion by considering Zadok’s evidence and the factors set forth in Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam), or alternatively in S.E.C. v. Internet Solutions for Business Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2007). However, because we are unable to discern either the legal or the factual bases for the district court’s decision, we are unable…