Case Name: Leodegario SALVADOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-03
Citations: 464 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 09-16846
Parties: Leodegario SALVADOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Leodegario SALVADOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-16846.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 3, 2012.
Leodegario Salvador, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Colt B. Dodrill, Peter E. Dunkley, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Cuong M. Nguyen, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Leodegario Salvador appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state claims in connection with his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to remand, Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Salvador's motion for remand because the complaint was based in part on alleged violations of federal statutes and, thus, the court had jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (allowing for the removal of "[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the . laws of the United States . without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties"); Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1394 ("When a plaintiffs complaint relies on federal law as the source of recovery, it is obvious that the case 'arises under' federal law and therefore may be removed to federal court." (citation omitted)). Additionally, Salvador has not shown that he properly served GMAC, which would have required them to file an answer in state court. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (requiring personal service).
We decline to consider 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) (per curiam); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
Salvador's motion to proceed on the original record is granted. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.2.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.