T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2 ). A cco rd i n g l y, S co tt ’ s req u est f oror a l a r gum e nti s de ni e d. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J ACK SCOTT , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B AN K O F NE W YOR K ME L L ON T R U S T C O M P A N Y ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16969 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 0 5 6 - SRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona S us a n R . B ol t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , G R A B E R , a n dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J a c kS c o tt ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in h is a c t i o n a r i s i n g f

r o m f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED MA Y29 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16969 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , O l s e n v . I daho State B d. of

Me d. , 363 F . 3d 916, 922 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor the re as on s s t at ed i n i t s or de re nt e r e d on A ugus t13, 2010. M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby im p lic itlyd e n y in g S c o tt’s r e q u e s t f o rac o n tin u a n c e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 56( f

) be c aus e S c ottf

a i l e d t o s how how a ddi t i ona l di s c ove ryw oul d ha ve p r e c lu d e ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t. Se e M ar gol is v . R y an , 14 0 F . 3d 85 0, 85 3 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( di stri ctcourtm ayi m pl i ci t l y deny Rul e 56(f) m ot i on ). S c ott ’ s appe a l of

the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e i ns t a t e the p r e lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n is m o o t. Se e Mt. G raham R e d Squi rr e l v . M adi gan , 954 F . 2d 1441, 1450 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( w he n unde r l y i ng c l a i m s ha ve be e n de c i de d, the re vers al of a deni al of a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on w ou l d h ave no p ra ct i ca l c o n s e q u e n c e s , a n dth e is s u e is th e r e f o r e m o o t) . A ppe l l e e s ’ m ot i on t o a m e nd the j ur i s di c t i ona l s t a t e m e nti n the i rnot i c e of r e m o v a l is g r a n te d . See Snel l v. C lev elan d, Inc. , 316 F . 3d 822, 828 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 3 , th e c o u rt o f ap p e a ls h a s th e au th o r ityto g r a n t le a v e to am en din o rd erto cu re d ef ec ti v e a ll eg atio n s o f ju risd icti o n ). C o n trary to S co tt ’s c ont e nt i ons , the di s tr i c tc ourtha d s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on on the ba s i s of d iv e r s ity . Se e J

o h n s o n v . Co lu m b i a Pr o p s . An c h o r a g e, LP , 4 3 7 F .3 d8 9 4 , 8 9 9 ( 9 th10- 16969 3 C i r . 2006) ( di s c us s i ng r e qui r e m e nt s f ordi ve r s i tyj ur i s di c t i on a nd c i t i z e ns hi p of l i m i t ed l i abi l i ty c om pani es ). S c o tt’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.