Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shizue S. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15096
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Shizue S. White, Pro Se
    Justin Donald Balser, Ashley Elizabeth Calhoun, Melissa L. Cizmorris, Attorneys, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shizue S. White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to remand, Or. Bureau of Labor v. IBS. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 288 F.3d 414, 417 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied White’s motion to remand to state court because White failed to establish the requirements for abstention under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 87 F.3d 290, 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth requirements for Burford abstention and standard of review for whether abstention requirements have been met).

In her opening brief, White fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her action, and thus she has waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.