Opinion ID: 4582866
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reply brief argument

Text: In her reply brief, Ms. Mitchell does not reply to any of the Bank’s arguments. She instead informs us that since the Bank filed its response brief, the Utah Court of Appeals has concluded that Mitchell II is not final (because the state district court had not disposed of Ms. Mitchell’s third-party claims) and therefore remanded the case to the state district court. 8 She contends that in light of this ruling, and based on 7 In the conclusion of her opening brief, Ms. Mitchell states that she “has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Hall, Cooley and Rampton stepped outside their prosecutorial roles by being actively involved in the investigation and in speaking to the media” and that she “has also alleged harm.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 19-20. Because none of the defendants in this case are named Hall, Cooley, or Rampton, this statement apparently refers to some other case her appellate counsel may have been involved with. 8 The Bank has provided this same information in a letter filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j). 14 allegations in her complaint that Mitchell II is not final, we should “rule on the issues of the Utah Federal District Court’s decision on [her] quit claim [sic], wrongful foreclosure and due process state law claims.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 4. However, the only decision the federal district court made about these state-law claims was to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, and Ms. Mitchell provides no argument that the court erred in doing so. Furthermore, the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Mitchell’s federal claims did not turn on whether Mitchell II was final. Ms. Mitchell’s request for a ruling on these state-law claims is therefore frivolous.