NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLEEN TOM; JOYCELYN W. 

UNCIANO,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Nos. 11-17905, 

 11-17906

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00653-SOMBMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2014

**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Coleen Tom and Joycelyn 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17906

review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether to exercise 

jurisdiction under 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 validity of the mortgage 

was also at issue in the parallel state court judicial foreclosure proceedings. See 

Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 494 (1942) (“Ordinarily 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 presenting the same 

issues, not governed by federal 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 filed, 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 their state law claims after 

the federal claim was withdrawn.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 a 
3 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 distinctly 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’ briefs are denied.

AFFIRMED.