Case Name: Dianna MONTEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-29
Citations: 710 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 16-55226
Parties: Dianna MONTEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Dianna MONTEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55226
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submission Deferred December 7, 2017
Filed January 29, 2018
Resubmitted January 29, 2018 Pasadena, California
Amid Bahadori, Bahadori & Thomas, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Joseph H. Bias, Morgan, Lewis & Bocki-us LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Frederic Block, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dianna Montez seeks review of the district court's order dismissing her Second Amended Complaint with leave 'to amend. However, we lack jurisdiction to review that order because it was not a final decision that ended the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the order did not merge into the district court's final order dismissing for failure to prosecute. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute "forfeits a litigant's right to appeal interlocutory orders prior to judgment"). We therefore decline to consider Montez's challenge to the district court's dismissal with leave to amend.
Although we have jurisdiction to review the dismissal for failure to prosecute, Mon-tez has forfeited any challenge to it. See Sharemaster v. SEC, 847 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Ordinarily, we will not consider 'matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief.'" (quoting United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 609, 514 (9th Cir. 1992))).
We have carefully considered Montez's remaining arguments, including her claim of judicial bias, and hold that they are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.