From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salvador v. GMAC Mortgage

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 3, 2012
464 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 09-16846 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00991-PMP-RJJ

01-03-2012

LEODEGARIO SALVADOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted December 19, 2011

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Leodegario Salvador appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state claims in connection with his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to remand, Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Salvador's motion for remand because the complaint was based in part on alleged violations of federal statutes and, thus, the court had jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (allowing for the removal of "[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the . . . laws of the United States . . . without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties"); Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1394 ("When a plaintiff's complaint relies on federal law as the source of recovery, it is obvious that the case 'arises under' federal law and therefore may be removed to federal court." (citation omitted)). Additionally, Salvador has not shown that he properly served GMAC, which would have required them to file an answer in state court. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (requiring personal service).

We decline to consider matters 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) (per curiam); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Salvador's motion to proceed on the original record is granted. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.2.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Salvador v. GMAC Mortgage

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 3, 2012
464 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Salvador v. GMAC Mortgage

Case Details

Full title:LEODEGARIO SALVADOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, Defendant …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 3, 2012

Citations

464 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2012)