eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-05

Sollenne Family Trust v. Cmg Mortgage, Inc. , 691 F. App'x 857 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOLLENNE FAMILY TRUST; et al.,                   No. 15-56296
Plaintiffs-Appellants,           D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00200-BEN-
WVG
v.
CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; et al.,                      MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack
of jurisdiction their action alleging various claims arising from a foreclosure sale.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gager v.
United States,
    149 F.3d 918
    , 920 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
there is a federal claim or that there is complete diversity between the parties. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 2201; Cal. Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins.
Fund,
    636 F.3d 538
    , 543 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he operation of the Declaratory
Judgment Act is procedural only and does not confer arising under jurisdiction.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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.”); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am.,
    511 U.S. 375
    , 377 (1994) (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving jurisdiction).
Plaintiffs’ opposed emergency motion to stay foreclosure proceedings
(Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                     15-56296