Scharringhausen

MEMORANDUM ***

Robert Scharringhausen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to set aside default judgment in this tax collection suit. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not restate it here.

A district court has discretion to set aside default judgments in cases of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Three factors are central to the analysis: (1) whether the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether the reopening of the default judgment would prejudice the plaintiff. Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir.1984); see also TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691 , 696 (9th Cir.2001). Accepting Scharringhausen’s allegations as true, the district court found each factor weighed against vacating the default. Denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Servs., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Washington, 98 F.3d 1159,1163 (9th Cir.1996).

Scharringhausen failed to take any action in this collection suit until more than…