Wayne McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na , 667 F. App'x 245 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE McINTOSH, No. 13-17483
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01218-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, FKA
America’s Servicing Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Wayne McIntosh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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 did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce the
temporary restraining order because the order expired by its own terms one day
after defendant removed the case, and McIntosh did not demonstrate that any party
violated the restraining order. See Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d
1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review for motions to enforce
injunctions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion
to compel because discovery had closed and McIntosh did not demonstrate good
cause for the untimely motion. See Jorgansen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial
phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial
order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion to strike depositions because
McIntosh did not identify the depositions he sought to strike. See id.
We reject McIntosh’s contention that Citibank, N.A. failed to appear
because the record shows that Citibank, N.A. timely appeared and answered the
complaint.
2 13-17483
We reject McIntosh’s contention that the district court was biased or violated
his due process or equal protection rights.
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17483