Case Name: James L. JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 599 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 13-16481
Parties: James L. JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
James L. JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16481.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 20, 2015.
James L. Jones, Jr., pro se.
Shayna N. Fernandez, Robert W. Shely, Rodney Wayne Ott, Esquire, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
James L. Jones, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in Jones's quiet title action because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the mortgagee's interest in the subject proper ty had been satisfied. See Farrell v. West, 57 Ariz. 490, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (1941) (where "it appears there is an unsatisfied balance due to a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court will not quiet the title until and unless [plaintiff] pays off such mortgage lien").
We deny Jones's request for judicial notice set forth in his opening brief. We reject Jones's contentions regarding subject matter jurisdiction and due process in the district court.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.