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.
Petra MARTINEZ; Stanley Atkinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were met, as the amount in controversy was over $75,000.00 and all parties were citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c)(1) (setting forth requirements of diversity jurisdiction and explaining that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State ․ by which it has been incorporated and of the State ․ where it has its principal place of business”); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) (explaining that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2007) (in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue “we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply”); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297, 306-07 (2002) (California’s doctrine of res judicata).
We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contention that defendants committed “fraud upon the court.”
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).
All pending requests are denied.
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. 19-16268
Decided: June 09, 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)