Mary Ann DUREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark Howard ALLENBAUGH, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55715
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 4, 2018
443 Fed. Appx. 443
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
Before: KELLY,* CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM**
Mary Dureau appeals the district court‘s denial of her motion for a default judgment
To state a claim for attorney negligence in California, a plaintiff must plead the existence of proximate causation: i.e., that but-for the attorney‘s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in a given action. Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal. 4th 1232, 1241, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 70 P.3d 1046 (2003). In her complaint, Dureau‘s allegations of proximate causation were wholly conclusory. Dureau therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), necessitating the denial of her motion for a default judgment. DirecTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1370 n.41 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Dureau‘s substantive claims lack merit. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d at 1471-72.
Dureau failed on appeal to develop her argument seeking a jury trial and has therefore waived it. Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.