eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-03

Geraldine Trice v. Lmic ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
MAR 21 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALDINE TRICE,                                No. 21-16422
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02139-KJD-NJK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Geraldine Trice appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her diversity action alleging state law 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). Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.,
    15 F.4th 885
    ,
*
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).
889 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trice’s breach of contract claim as
barred by her insurance contract’s one-year limitation period. See Clark v. Truck
Ins. Exch.,
    598 P.2d 628
    , 629-30 (Nev. 1979) (explaining that the twelve-month
limitation period starts to run no later than when the insurer formally denies
liability).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Trice’s motion for
reconsideration because Trice set forth no valid grounds for reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).
The district court properly denied Trice’s motion to remand the case to state
court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    . See
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a) (setting forth requirements for diversity
jurisdiction); Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC,
    795 F.3d 1057
    , 1059 (9th Cir. 2015)
(setting forth standard of review); Budget Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Higashiguchi,
    109 F.3d 1471
    , 1473 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A claim in excess of the requisite amount, made
in good faith in the complaint, satisfies the jurisdictional requirement.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including Trice’s contentions regarding the district court’s
2                                     21-16422
dismissal of her good faith and fair dealing and Nevada statutory claims. See
Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Indep. Towers of Wash.
v. Washington,
    350 F.3d 925
    , 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any
claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).
We reject as meritless Trice’s contentions that jurisdiction was “divested”
under
    12 U.S.C. § 1821
    (d) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act; that the district court’s dismissal violated
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
    ; and
that the district court’s decision was based on fraud, constituted an obstruction of
justice, violated due process, violated the right to trial, or impermissibly relied on
hearsay.
AFFIRMED.
3                                     21-16422