
    KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fusheng LIU, AKA Liu Fusheng, AKA Fu Sheng Liu, Defendant—Appellant, and KXD Technology, Inc.; Astar Electronics, Inc.; Astar Electronics USA, Inc.; Shenzhen KXD Multimedia Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Kaixinda Electronics Co. Ltd.; KXD Digital Entertainment, Ltd.; Jingyi Luo, AKA James Luo; Sungale Group, Inc.; Sungale Electronics (Shenzhen), Ltd.; Amoi Electronics, Inc.; Amoi Electronics Co., Ltd.; Amoi Electronics, Ltd.; China Electronics Corporation; Amoisonic Electronics, Inc.; International Norcent Technology, Inc.; Norcent Holdings, Inc.; Shanghai Hongsheng Technology Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Newland Electronic Industry Co., Ltd.; Desay A&V (USA) Inc.; Desay A&V Science & Technology Co., Ltd.; Desay Holdings Co., Ltd.; Xoro Electronics (Shanghai) Ltd.; Shenzhen Xoro Electronics Co. Ltd.; Mas Elektronik AG Corporation; Shenzhen Oriental Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Defendants.
    No. 08-16763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 3, 2009.
    Filed July 1, 2009.
    Todd L. Bice, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Sehreck LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Wendy C. Freedman, Esquire, Jan Jensen, Jeffrey K. Joyner, Jai H. Rho, Esquire, Keats McFarland & Wilson, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anton N. Handal, Esquire, Pamela Carol Chalk, Gabriel Hedrick, Handal & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant/Defendants.
    Joshua L. Harmon, Esquire, Harmon & Davies, Charles McCrea, Esquire, Lionel, Sawyer And Collins, Noah G. Allison, Esquire, McCrea Martin Allison, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.
    Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BURNS , District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Larry Burns, United States District Judge for the' Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fusheng Liu (Liu) appeals from the district court's entry of default judgment against him. However, because Liu failed to file a motion in the district court under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) or 60(b) seeking to set aside the second entry of default or entry of default judgment, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Domain Name Clearing Company, LLC, 346 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.2003) mandates dismissal. Liu’s “argument that service was insufficient is not a matter properly before this court.” Id.

Nothing in Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Rules of the Ninth Circuit required Appellee to file a motion to dismiss the appeal before raising Liu’s failure to seek relief from the default judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     