Niki-Alexander Shetty v. the Bank of New York Mellon ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 26 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish               No. 17-55342
    Shetty,
    D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08774-GW-FFM
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON as
    Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT,
    Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2005-43
    Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
    2005-43, a fictitious entity formerly known
    as The Bank of New York; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district
    *
    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).
    court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging pre-foreclosure claims.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
    under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis
    supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 
    547 F.3d 1055
    , 1058-59 (9th Cir.
    2008). We affirm.
    Dismissal of Shetty’s action 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)).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
    Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Appellee The Bank of New York Mellon’s request for judicial notice
    (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied as unnecessary.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     17-55342
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-55342

Judges: Wallace, Silverman, Bybee

Filed Date: 12/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024