eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-03

Audrey Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDREY L. KIMNER,                               No. 20-15861
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:19-cv-07576-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAPITAL TITLE OF TEXAS, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before:      GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Audrey L. Kimner appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from Texas state court cases
in which Kimner claimed fraud in the sale of her condominium. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under the
*
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).
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall,
    341 F.3d 1148
    , 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), and
under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B), Watison v. Carter,
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kimner’s claims against all defendants
(except Margaret A. Poissant) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because her claims are a “de facto appeal” of the Texas
state court decisions. Noel,
    341 F.3d at 1163-65
    .
The district court properly dismissed nonresident defendant Poissant because
Kimner failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the district court had
personal jurisdiction over her. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
    374 F.3d 797
    , 801-02 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing requirements for general and specific
personal jurisdiction).
We reject as unpersuasive Kinmer’s contentions that Magistrate Judge
Cousins was biased or conspired against her.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2                                        20-15861