
    Mary Ann DUREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark Howard ALLENBAUGH, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55715
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed January 4, 2018
    ■ Joseph Curtis Edmondson, Attorney, Law Office of J. Curtis Edmondson, Hills-boro, OR, Michael Owen Stevens, Stevens & Legal, Hillsboro, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Before: KELLY, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges
    
      
       The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 Allen-•baugh. We review the denial of a motion for a default judgment for 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, 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 riot abuse its discretion when it determined that Du-reau’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,
     