FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA, No. 13-16286
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01637-LRH-
CWH
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted: November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Dimitritza Toromanova appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order
denying her motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Yocupicio v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Toromanova’s motion to remand because
it correctly determined that Tiffany Labo – the only non-diverse defendant – was
fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. See Hunter v. Philip Morris
USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Although an action may be removed
to federal court only where there is complete diversity of citizenship, ‘one
exception to the requirement for complete diversity is where a non-diverse
defendant has been fraudulently joined.’” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir.
1998) (“If the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant,
and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state, the joinder of
the resident defendant is fraudulent.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Labo does not “have or claim any interest which would be affected” by
the declaratory judgment sought by plaintiff. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 30.130.
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16286