eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2016-11

Fareed Sepehry-Fard v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, I , 670 F. App'x 574 ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,                             No.    14-16264
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:13-cv-04535-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before:       LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*
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).
Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,
    231 F.3d 1129
    , 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Sepehry-Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to
show any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    , 1332(a); Yokeno v. Mafnas,
    973 F.2d 803
    , 807-08 (9th Cir.
1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a “substantial federal
question”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004)
(addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).
We do not consider any claims that Sepehry-Fard did not properly raise
before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009).
Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due
process are unpersuasive.
In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard’s
claims.
Sepehry-Fard’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                    14-16264