Coleen Tom v. Gmac Mortgage, LLC , 588 F. App'x 671 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLEEN TOM; JOYCELYN W. Nos. 11-17905,
UNCIANO, 11-17906
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00653-SOM-
BMK
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware MEMORANDUM*
limited liability company; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Coleen Tom and Joycelyn W. Unciano appeal
pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether to exercise
jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol,
133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly exercised its sound discretion not to exercise
jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim seeking to have the assignment of
the mortgage to GMAC Mortgage declared invalid, as the validity of the mortgage
was also at issue in the parallel state court judicial foreclosure proceedings. See
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 494 (1942) (“Ordinarily it would
be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory
judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same
issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.”); Gov’t Emps. Ins.
Co., 133 F.3d at 1225 (“If there are parallel state proceedings involving the same
issues and parties pending at the time the federal declaratory action is filed, there is
a presumption that the entire suit should be heard in state court.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
to remand and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims after
the federal claim was withdrawn. See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp.,
242 F.3d 1102, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review for a
2 11-17906
district court’s remand order); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205
(9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review for a district court’s decision to
adjudicate pendant state claims and discussing relevant factors).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration of the dismissal of their first amended complaint and motion to
alter or amend judgment because they failed to establish any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
We reject plaintiffs’ contentions regarding leave to amend, staying the
action, and oral argument.
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)
(per curiam).
Defendants’ motion for judicial notice, filed January 3, 2013, is denied as
unnecessary.
All requests contained in the parties’ briefs are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17906