Opinion
No. 15-56695
04-24-2017
AUDREY DAGMAR TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01255-GW-MAN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the subject of this dispute. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see also Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).
We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Tomerlin's motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns Hopkins' motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.