SHETTY FKA v. GREENPOINT MTA TRUST 2006 AR2 (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to a foreclosure and a third-party borrower’s mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on an basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Shetty’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim was proper because Shetty failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing Shetty’s FDCPA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

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).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.