Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Estelita T. TERRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Sandy Wong, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM **
Estelita T. Terrado appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2008) (lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Terrado’s claims related to the foreclosure of her property for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they are a “de facto appeal” of decisions of the Hawaii state court and are “inextricably intertwined” with those state court decisions. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163; see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Terrado’s claims on behalf of her aunt for lack of standing. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (to satisfy constitutional standing requirements, a plaintiff must show she has suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terrado’s motions for default because Terrado failed to effect proper service on U.S. Bank. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c); see also Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-24; Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terrado’s motion for reconsideration because Terrado failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-15677
Decided: April 16, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)