Lindsay Jenkins v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank Na , 549 F. App'x 673 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINDSAY JENKINS, No. 11-35258
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00052-TSZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, doing
business as Washington Mutual,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Lindsay Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
*
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).
1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’ action because, under the
Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”)
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), Chase did not assume
any liability associated with borrower claims against Washington Mutual. See 12
U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) (authorizing FDIC to transfer “any asset or liability”
of the failed bank); see also W. Park Assocs. v. Butterfield Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 60
F.3d 1452, 1458 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing FDIC’s authority to limit liabilities
assumed by a purchasing bank through a Purchase and Assumption Agreement).
We do not consider Jenkins’ allegations regarding Chase’s alleged
misconduct after it acquired Washington Mutual’s assets because Jenkins failed to
raise them properly in the district court. See Palmer v. IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312-
13 (9th Cir. 1997).
Jenkins’ request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-35258