In re Dixon

MEMORANDUM ***

Kathryn Dixon appeals the district court’s judgment, denying her motion to vacate a default judgment that disbarred Dixon from practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review the district court’s judgment for a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it here.

Motions to vacate a default judgment are cognizable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c). The district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60(b)(1) motion that alleges “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” when the defaulting party’s culpable conduct led to the default. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d at 1108 .

We find that the district court properly held that Dixon’s culpable conduct led to the default judgment against her. Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811 (9th Cir.1985), is controlling on this point. In Pena , the plaintiff policyholder…