From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shetty v. Cwalt, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 21, 2018
No. 17-16807 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-16807

08-21-2018

NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish Shetty, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CWALT, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-02980-LHK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shetty's action because Shetty failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his action alleging solely state law claims, and did not show that all defendants were citizens of a different state than Shetty. See In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff."); Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motions to dismiss without first holding a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) ("By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.").

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).

The Bank of New York Mellon's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Shetty v. Cwalt, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 21, 2018
No. 17-16807 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Shetty v. Cwalt, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish Shetty, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CWALT…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 21, 2018

Citations

No. 17-16807 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)