NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLEEN TOM ; JOYCELYN W. UNCIANO,

Plaintiff s - Appellant s ,
v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No s . 11

- 17905, 11

- 17906 D.C. No. 1:10

- cv - 00653

- SOM

BMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal s from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9 , 201 4 ** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY , and BYBEE Circuit Judges.
In these consoli dated appeals, Coleen Tom and Joyc elyn W. Unciano appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 11

- 17906

review for an abuse of discretion the distr ict court’s decision whether to exercise jurisdiction und er the Declaratory Judgment Act. Gov’t Emps

. Ins. Co. v. Dizol , 133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)

. We affirm.
The district court properly exercised its sound discretion not to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim seeking to have the assignment of the mortgage to GMAC Mortgage declared invalid , as the va lidity of the mortgage
was also at issue in the parallel state court judicial foreclos ur e proceedings

. See
Brillha rt v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am. , 316 U.S. 491, 494 (1942) ( “ O rdinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presen ting the same issues, not governed by federa l law, between the same parties

. ” ) ; Gov’t Emps

. Ins.
Co. , 133 F.3d at 1225 (“ If there are parallel state proceedings involving the same issues and parties pending at the time the federal declaratory action is fil ed, there is a presumption that the entire suit should be heard in state court. ”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
to remand and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the ir state law claims after
the federa l claim was withdrawn

. See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp. , 242 F.3d 1102, 1111

- 12 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review for a3 11

- 17906

district court’s remand order ); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co ., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review for a district court’s decision to adjudicate pendant state claims and discussing relevant factors)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration of the dismissal of their first amended complaint and motion to alter or amend judgment because they failed to establish any basis for relief

. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993 ) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) ). We reject plaintiffs’ contentions regarding leave to amend, staying the action, and oral argument. We do not consider matters not specifically and d istinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Defendants’ motion for judicial notice, filed January 3, 2013 , is denied as
unnecessary . All requests contained in the parties’ br iefs are denied.
AFFIRMED.