Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephanie O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANKUNITED, a federally Chartered saving Bank, as successor in interest to BankUnited, FSB; National Default Servicing Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16795.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Feb. 26, 2015.
    Stephanie O’Connor, Reno, NV, pro se.
    Gregory L. Wilde, Esquire, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN; LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephanie O’Connor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction because, contrary to O’Con-nor’s contention, the amount in controversy was satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1045 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (in an action seeking injunctive relief, the “amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

O’Connor does not challenge the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). We do not consider O’Connor’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not ap-pealable regardless of whether the failure to prosecute was purposeful). We also do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.