¶1E. E. Selden and Thomas Owen Marlar, both of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.
¶2Snell, Strouss & Wilmer, of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.
¶3Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
¶5In the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, appellant, a citizen of Oregon, brought an action against appellees, citizens of Arizona, for damages in the sum of $21,000. Appellees answered. Thereafter, desiring to take the deposition of appellant upon oral examination, appellees gave notice as provided in Rule 30 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. *678The notice was dated November 6, 1942, and was served 2 on November 7, 1942. It was addressed to appellant and his attorney and was signed by appellees’ attorneys. It read as follows:
“You and each of you will please take notice that [appellees] will take the deposition of [appellant] upon oral examination as an adverse party before Louis L. Billar, a notary public in and for the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, at the offices of Snell & Strouss,3 703 Heard Building, Phoenix, Arizona, at 10:00 o’clock A.M., Friday, the 20th day of November, 1942.”
Appellant disregarded the notice. He did not appear before the officer who was to take his deposition, or at the place where his deposition was to be taken, on November 20, 1942, or at all. On December 4, 1942, appellees filed and served 4 a verified* motion stating these facts and praying the court to strike out appellant’s complaint and enter a judgment by default against him, as provided in Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,5 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. After due notice, the court heard the motion6 and, on December 21, 1942, made the following order:
“It is ordered that [appellant] appear for the taking of his deposition at Phoenix, Arizona, January 11, 1943, at the offices of Messrs. Snell & Strouss, attorneys for [appellees] ; otherwise this complaint herein will be dismissed.”
¶6Appellant disregarded the order. He did not appear for the’taking of his deposition on January 11, 1943, or at all. On January 12, 1943, appellees moved the court to dismiss the action, as provided in Rule 37 (d).7 After due notice,8 the court heard the motion, granted it and, on January 18, 1943, entered judgment dismissing the action. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
¶7The appeal is a frivolous one. The notice for taking appellant’s deposition was a proper notice and was properly served. It is immaterial, if true, that no subpoena was served on appellant,9 for he was a party, and therefore no subpoena was necessary.10 Nor is it material that appellant’s deposition was to be taken in the office of appellees’ attorneys.11 The suggestion that, because appellant resided in Oregon, the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, whose jurisdiction he had invoked, could not require him to give a deposition in Arizona is untenable.12 If he wished to be relieved from going to Arizona, he could and should have sought such relief by “motion seasonably made,” as provided in Rule 30(b) of the- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,13 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Instead, he disregarded the notice and the court’s order and wilfully failed to comply with either.
¶8Judgment affirmed.