Securities & Exchange Commission v. Celani

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick George Celani appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) civil law enforcement action against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., Bankers Ins. 658 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Celani’s motion to set aside the default judgment because Celani failed to present a meritorious defense to the SEC’s action. See Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir.2000) (a district court may deny a motion to set aside a default judgment if the defendant lacks a meritorious defense). We are not persuaded by Celani’s contention that he was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to await his opposition to the SEC’s motion to amend the judgment to reflect Celani’s true identity given that Celani does not dispute the accuracy of the amendment.

Celani’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.