Mehrdad Shayefar v. Von-Alan Kaleleiki

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEHRDAD SHAYEFAR; GINA No. 16-16610
SHAYEFAR,
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00322-HG-KSC
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. MEMORANDUM*
VON-ALAN HINANO KALELEIKI,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
SARAH-THERECE K. KALELEIKI,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*
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).
judgment in favor of the Shayefars in their action to quiet title. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant
of summary judgment and determination of subject matter jurisdiction. Haro v.
Sebelius, 747 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Shayefars’
claim to quiet title because defendants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether they held superior title to the Shayefars on the subject property.
See Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Infiesto, 879 P.2d 507, 512-13 (Haw. 1994)
(“In an action to quiet title, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove title in and to the
land in dispute . . . [by showing] either that he has paper title to the property or that
he holds title by adverse possession . . . [and] that he has a substantial interest in
the property and that his title is superior to that of the defendants.”); Makila Land
Co., LLC v. Kapu, 388 P.3d 49, 50 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016) (“A prima facie case can
be made in various ways, but is usually done by bringing forward evidence of the
initial land grant award and tracing ownership forward to the plaintiff through
‘mesne conveyances, devise, or descent’ or through evidence of adverse
possession. . . .” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Alexander &
Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 248 P.3d 1207, 1213 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) (“If the plaintiff
and the defendant both bring forward evidence supporting their claims of title, then
the court must decide, based on the evidence presented, which party has title
2 16-16610
superior to that of the other party.”).
To the extent that appellant challenges the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, the district court properly determined that there was diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.
2015) (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction); see also United States
v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting jurisdictional challenge
by Hawaiian nationals).
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 16-16610