NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish No. 17-15656
Shetty,
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03112-BLF
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL ALLEN LEWIS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims
relating to a mortgage loan on real property obtained by third-party borrowers. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Salt River Project Agric.
Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shetty’s action
for failure to join Maria Elena Martinez and Heriberto Martinez because the
Martinezes, as the borrowers of mortgages on the subject property, are required
parties. See id. (describing bases for concluding a party is required to join (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of
certain public records and bankruptcy court documents, and considering
documents referenced in Shetty’s complaint without converting defendants’
motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. See Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review,
and describing documents that a district court may take judicial notice of when
ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).
We reject as unsupported by the record Shetty’s contention that the district
judge denied his rights to due process and equal protection.
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 17-15656