KHAN v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Richard A. Khan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging California state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Khan's action as time-barred because Khan filed his action after the applicable statute of limitations had run. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d) (claims for fraud in California have a three-year statute of limitations); Salazar v. Thomas, 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 695 n.8 (2015) (California has a “catch-all” four-year limitations period); see also Walters v. Boosinger, 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895, 904 (2016) (four-year statute of limitations applies even when the plaintiff alleges the underlying deed is void).

The district court properly denied Khan's motion for remand. See Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n. of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Defendants who are nominal parties with nothing at stake may be disregarded in determining diversity[.]”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l(a) & (d) (allowing trustees to declare non-monetary status and granting that status if the declaration is not objected to).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Khan's complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

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).

AFFIRMED.