Gahr
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gahr
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Lee E. Gahr, a Canadian national, appeals from the district court’s entry of default judgment against him after he failed to file an answer to a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) complaint alleging various violations of federal securities laws in connection with Chill Tech, Inc. He argues that his failure to answer the complaint was “excusable neglect” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), caused by his naivete and unfamiliarity with the American judicial system. We reject his argument and affirm the district court’s decision.
*891 To successfully set aside a default judgment because of excusable neglect, Gahr must demonstrate that: (a) he was not culpable of conduct that led to the default; (b) he has a meritorious defense to the complaint; and (c) the SEC would not be prejudiced by reopening the case. Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2004). Gahr bears the burden of demonstrating that all three factors weigh in favor of vacating the default judgment. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir.1988).
Gahr has failed to demonstrate that any of the three factors favor vacatur. The record…