Anita Carr v. U.S. Bank National Association , 693 F. App'x 700 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANITA B. CARR, pro se, No. 16-16058
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01690-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Anita B. Carr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her diversity action alleging various claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on
the basis of the applicable statutes of limitations. Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carr’s action as time-barred because
“the running of the statute[s] is apparent on the face of the complaint” and the
allegations do not permit a showing that the statutes were tolled. Jablon v. Dean
Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fox v. Ethicon Endo-
Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914, 917 (Cal. 2005) (“[T]he statute of limitations begins to
run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause,
unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time
would not have revealed a factual basis for that particular cause of action.”).
Contrary to Carr’s contention, her action was not tolled during the pendency
of her prior state court action. See Thomas v. Gilliland, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 520, 524
(Ct. App. 2002) (“In the absence of a statute, a party cannot deduct from the period
of the statute of limitations applicable to his case the time consumed by the
pendency of an action in which he sought to have the matter adjudicated, but which
was dismissed without prejudice to him.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
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).
2 16-16058
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16058