Richard Khan v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD A. KHAN, No. 20-16781
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-03608-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC;
PRESTIGE DEFAULT SERVICES, a
California Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Richard A. Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging California state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
*
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).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the applicable statute of
limitations. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Khan’s action as time-barred because
Khan filed his action after the applicable statute of limitations had run. See Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d) (claims for fraud in California have a three-year statute
of limitations); Salazar v. Thomas, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 695 n.8 (Ct. App. 2015)
(California has a “catch-all” four-year limitations period); see also Walters v.
Boosinger, 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895, 904 (Ct. App. 2016) (four-year statute of
limitations applies even when the plaintiff alleges the underlying deed is void).
The district court properly denied Khan’s motion for remand. See Strotek
Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n. of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“Defendants who are nominal parties with nothing at stake may be disregarded in
determining diversity[.]”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l(a) & (d) (allowing
trustees to declare non-monetary status and granting that status if the declaration is
not objected to).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Khan’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave
2 20-16781
to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16781