NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDI MEER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DENNIS DILLON AUTO PARK & TRUCK CENTER, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 35681 D.C. No. 1:12

- cv - 00025

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016 ** Before: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Wendi Meer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a vehicle lease agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

.

* 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). 

# FILED

DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 35681

Munger v. City of Glaslow Po lice Dep’t , 227 F. 3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000)

. We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. United States v. State of Wash. , 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm. The district court properly granted s ummary judgment on Meer’s claims regarding the repossession of her leased vehic le because Meer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants breached the lease agreement

. See Idaho v. Shohone

- Bannock Tribes , 465 F.3d 1095, 1098

- 00 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying Idaho contract law and concluding that “[c] ontract terms are to be given their ordinary meaning, and when the terms of a contract are clear, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the contract itself. ” (citation omitted))

. S ummary judgment wa s proper on Meer’ s credit reporting claim against Northwest Leasing and bank withdrawal claim against Dennis Dillion Auto Park & Truck Center, Inc. because Meer failed to raise a genuine dispute o f material fact
as to whether the credit reports were fraud ulent or whether her monthly lease payment for April 2011 was improperly withdrawn from her bank account

. See Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise, Inc. , 833 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th Cir. 2016) (burden s of persuasion for summary judgment).3 14

- 35681

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Meer’s motion to disqualify Chief Judge Winmill because Meer failed to show “ extrajudicial bias or prejudice.” Thomassen v. United States , 835 F.2d 727, 732 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard of review) ; s ee also U nited S tates v. Hernandez , 109 F.3d 1450, 145 3

- 5 4 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from an extrajudicial

source . [J] udicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” ( alteration in original, citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Meer’s request to convert her motion to disqualify Chief Judge Winmill
into a Writ of Mandamus , set forth in her opening brief, is denied

. See Bauman v.
U.S. Dist. Court , 557 F.2d 650, 654

- 55 (9 th Cir. 1977). The district court properly d enied Meer’s motion to transfer her action to
this court prior to the resolution of her claims before the district court

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. , 780 F.2d 766, 768 (9th Cir. 1986) ( standard of review )

. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants’ reque st for fees and costs, set for th in their answering brief, is4 14

- 35681

denied without prejudice to renewal in a properly filed bill of costs and attorney’s
fees motion

. AFFIRMED.