Donald Brandt v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD K. BRANDT; TZIPORA No. 19-55471
BRANDT,
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08545-VAP-
Plaintiffs-Appellants, AFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Donald K. Brandt and Tzipora Brandt appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out
of the foreclosure of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall,
*
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).
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Brandts’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a “de facto
appeal” of prior state court decisions and raises claims that are “inextricably
intertwined” with those decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing Rooker-Feldman
doctrine).
We do not 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).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55471