Svetlana Kudina v. Citimortgage Inc , 564 F. App'x 308 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SVETLANA KUDINA, No. 11-35897
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05887-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITIMORTGAGE INC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Svetlana Kudina appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her action challenging her mortgage-related obligations and resulting notices of
default. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Arakaki v. Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly denied Kudina’s motion for summary judgment,
and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, because Kudina
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s attempts
to enforce contractual obligations regarding an escrow account accompanying her
mortgage were fraudulent, negligent, or warranted injunctive relief. See
McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
preliminary injunction standard); Adams v. King County, 192 P.3d 891, 902 (Wash.
2008) (listing the elements of fraud); Caughell v. Grp. Health Coop. of Puget
Sound, 876 P.2d 898, 906 (Wash. 1994) (listing the elements of negligence); see
also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (party opposing
summary judgment must come forward with significant probative evidence as to
each element of the claim on which it bears the burden of proof).
Kudina’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged unfamiliarity with
the record, the status of formal foreclosure proceedings, the implications of a post-
judgment refund check from CitiMortgage, and the application of the decision in
Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34 (Wash. 2012), are
unpersuasive.
We do not consider issues referenced in Kudina’s Notice of Appeal but not
argued in her briefs, or issues raised for the first time in her reply brief, including
2 11-35897
regarding discovery, leave to amend, and alleged judicial bias. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Kudina’s motion to supplement the record and her request for judicial
notice, filed on September 24 and 25, 2012, are granted.
We treat Kudina’s letter to the court, received on January 27, 2014, as a
motion to expedite, and deny it as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35897