eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2018-08

Niki-Alexander Shetty v. Cwalt, Inc. ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish               No. 17-16807
Shetty,
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-02980-LHK
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
CWALT, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before:      FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
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.
2                                    17-16807