#### Vivian WRIGHT-BOLTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melanie ANDRESS-TOBIASSON; Kocka & Bolton, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15317

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 11, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed August 17, 2017

Cal J. Potter, III, Esquire, Attorney, Cal J. Potter, IV, Esquire, Attorney, Potter Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Walter R. Cannon, Esquire, Attorney, Thomas D. Dillard, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stober-ski, Las Vegas, NV, Chris Thomas Rasmussen, Esquire, Attorney, Rasmussen & Kang, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

*259Before: FARRIS, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vivian Wright-Bolton appeals from the District Court’s ruling granting summary-judgment in favor of Judge Melanie An-dress-Tobiasson based on Judge Andress-Tobiasson’s claim of absolute judicial immunity, and denying Wright-Bolton’s cross-motion for a stay of summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Wright-Bolton’s suit alleged claims for violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy in connection with Judge An-dress-Tobiasson’s issuance of an order concerning Wright-Bolton’s divorce proceedings in a Canadian court. ER 204-08. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. *Fisher v. Kealoha,*855 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017). When neither party identifies any material fact in dispute, we need “consider only whether the district court correctly applied the law.” *Id.*We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 56(d) motion to stay summary judgment pending further discovery for abuse of discretion. *Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation,*323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).

2. A judge enjoys total immunity from suit for her actions except in two instances: when the judge’s actions are “nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity[,]” or when the judge’s actions, “though judicial in nature, [are] taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” *Mireles v. Waco,*502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (internal citations omitted); *see also Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

The Supreme Court held in *Stump*that any deficiencies in form cannot make an otherwise judicial act, like an order, into a non-judicial act. 435 U.S. at 362-63, 98 S.Ct. 1099. Indeed, the issuance of orders is a quintessential judicial act. Thus, we find that Judge Andress-Tobiasson’s actions were taken in her judicial capacity.

Furthermore, although the jurisdiction of the Nevada Justice Court does not extend to the subject matter of Judge Andress-Tobiasson’s order, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 4.370, the relevant Canadian statute, Civil Marriage Act, S.C. 2005, c. 33, refers broadly to “a court located in the state where one of the spouses resides.” *See*ER 100. We have previously held that where a judge has a “colorable authority” for asserting jurisdiction, she has not acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” *Crooks v. Maynard,*913 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1990). Likewise, when a judge “misinterpret[s] a statute and erroneously exercise[s] jurisdiction[,]” she is not acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction. *Schucker v. Rockwood,*846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). Given the breadth of the Canadian statute, Judge Andress-Tobiasson acted with “colorable authority.” We find that Judge Andress-Tobiasson did not act in the *“clear*absence of all jurisdiction.” *Stump,*435 U.S. at 357, 98 S.Ct. 1099 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation marks omitted).

3.Finally, Wright-Bolton’s motion to stay the summary judgment proceedings *260pending further discovery failed to articulate the “the specific facts that [she] hope[d] to elicit from further discovery. ...” *California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell,*138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998); *see*ER 86-87; Blue 20-22. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright-Bolton’s request.

AFFIRMED.

**

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