Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund for Southern Nevada v. World Wide

── Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund for Southern Nevada v. World Wide ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE No. 25-2381 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 SECURITY D.C. No. FUND FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; 2:23-cv-01469-CDS-DJA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS CONVENTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. WORLD WIDE EXHIBITS, INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 11, 2026** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and HOLCOMB, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable John W. Holcomb, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.  World Wide Exhibits, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment. The district court granted default judgment for the Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund for Southern Nevada and the Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Convention Industry Training Fund (“Plaintiffs”), who claimed that World Wide failed to make records available for audit in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1145 and World Wide’s obligations under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Aguilar, 782 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). That review entails a two-step test: “The first step of our abuse of discretion test is to determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. The second step is . . . to determine whether the trial court’s application of the correct legal standard was (1) ‘illogical,’ (2) ‘implausible,’ or (3) without ‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’” Id. (citation modified) (quoting United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). 1. The district court identified the correct legal rule governing motions to set aside the default judgment. A court may set aside a default judgment for 2 25-2381 “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b). Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)). When a defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b), “a court must consider three factors: (1) whether the party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether it had no meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the other party.” Id. (citation modified) (quoting United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010)). “This standard is disjunctive, such that a finding that any one of these factors is true is sufficient reason for the district court to refuse to set aside the default.” Id. (citation modified) (quoting Mesle, 615 F.3d at 1091).