Alpha Phoenix Industries, LLC v. SCI International, Inc., 666 F. App'x 598

Plaintiff API, an Arizona-based business, sued Joanna, John, and Mark Burke (appealing pro se) and SCI International, Inc. for alleged online defamatory statements aimed at harming API’s business.
SCI, a corporation, was dismissed from the appeal because corporations must be represented by counsel on appeal.
The district court entered a default and default judgment against the individual Burkes after finding they disregarded court orders and engaged in conduct leading to default; it also entered an injunction and awarded damages.
Defendants moved to set aside the default and default judgment; the district court denied the motion, finding culpable (bad-faith) conduct and prejudice to API.
Defendants argued on appeal that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, that the injunction was a prior restraint violating the First Amendment, and raised other challenges and factual complaints not presented below.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: personal jurisdiction was proper based on defendants’ targeted online acts toward Arizona; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default; and several appellate arguments were waived for not having been raised in the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction	Defendants purposefully targeted Arizona; jurisdiction allowed	Court lacked personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants	Jurisdiction proper: defendants expressly aimed online conduct at Arizona; due process satisfied (minimum contacts)
Setting aside default/default judgment	Default justified by defendants’ misconduct and resulting prejudice	Default should be set aside for good cause	No abuse of discretion: defendants engaged in culpable conduct, had no showing of meritorious defense, and API was prejudiced
First Amendment challenge to injunction	Injunction appropriate given default judgment and harms found	Injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint; truth/falsity not fully litigated	Challenge waived on appeal because not raised below in the same form; merits not considered
New factual allegations and procedural complaints on appeal	N/A (not raised below)	District court conspired, mishandled filings, common-law challenge to injunction, damages improper	Waived for failure to raise in district court; insufficient basis for relief

Elec. Specialty Co. v. Rd. & Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1992) (default-judgment jurisdictional challenges reviewed de novo)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (three-part minimum-contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (Arizona long-arm statute construes jurisdiction consistent with due process)
CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004) (same; long-arm/due process alignment)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (plaintiff-focused effects test: defendant must expressly aim conduct at forum)
Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 653 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and factors for setting aside default/default judgment)
United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730, 615 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (good-cause factors for vacating default)
Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (same three-factor test for good cause)
United States v. Flores-Montano, 424 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005) (issues not raised below are normally waived)
D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2004) (corporations must be represented by counsel on appeal)
Licht v. Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 1994) (same)