Case Name: Audrey Dagmar TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 15-56695
Parties: Audrey Dagmar TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Audrey Dagmar TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56695
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin, Pro Se
Tambry Bradford, Attorney, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Laurence Z. Shiekman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the subject of this dispute. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see also Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).
We do not consider issues 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).
Tomerlin's motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns Hopkins' motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.