NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada No. 15-35963
corporation,
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Denise Subramaniam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in LNV Corporation’s diversity action arising out of judicial foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because
Subramaniam failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether LNV
was not entitled to judicial foreclosure. See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 73.0301, 86.710-
86.715, Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 303 P.3d 301, 315 (Or. 2013) (en banc)
(“A trust deed follows the promissory note that it secures.”); Deutsche Bank Trust
Co. Ams. v. Walmsley, 374 P.3d 937, 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (concluding plaintiff
entitled to enforce a promissory note where plaintiff established “that it possessed
the note at the time of the foreclosure action and that the note was indorsed to
plaintiff.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Subramaniam’s contention that the
district court was biased 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). We do not
consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921
F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district
court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 61, 66, 71, 73, 75, and 76) and
requests (Docket Entry No. 67) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35963