Case Name: Peter SZANTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARINA MARKET PLACE 2, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 703 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 15-15181
Parties: Peter SZANTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARINA MARKET PLACE 2, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Peter SZANTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARINA MARKET PLACE 2, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15181
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 21, 2017
Peter Szanto, Pro Se
James J. Rankl, Esquire, Attorney, James J. Rankl, Attorney at Law, P.C., Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appel-lees
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, 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
Peter Szanto appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to a family trust. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's order dismissing an action under its inherent authority. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Szanto's action after finding that Szanto failed to effect timely service on defendants and that he misrepresented facts to the court on two separate occasions indicating otherwise. See id. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123.
We reject as unsupported by the record Szanto's contentions concerning bias of the district judge.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.