Mary Dureau appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a default judgment on a professional negligence claim against her former attorney Mark Howard Allenbaugh. We review the denial of a motion for a default judgment for

2

abuse of discretion and may affirm on any ground finding support in the record. Eitel v. McCool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986).

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 (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 (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.

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

[**] The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.