Niki-Alexander Shetty v. Greenpoint Mta Trust 2006-Ar2 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish No. 17-16810
Shetty,
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00808-NC
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
GREENPOINT MTA TRUST 2006-AR2; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 15, 2018***
Before: LEAVY, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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).
2 17-16810
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19)
is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-16810