Case Name: Dorothy JAVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE KB HOME LOANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-25
Citations: 467 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 10-17398
Parties: Dorothy JAVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE KB HOME LOANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Dorothy JAVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE KB HOME LOANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
Dorothy Javier, pro se.
Diana Erb, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Daniel F. Polsenberg, Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Dorothy Javier appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's order denying a motion to reconsider. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Javier's motion to reconsider because Javier failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263.
Contrary to Javier's contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims arising under federal statutes and thus removal was proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.