Court Opinion

ID: 9959811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 17:01:32.90577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:54.534058
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 12 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD CLOYCE WAGDA,                            No.    22-16846

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:19-cv-01064-DAD-DB
 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF                    MEMORANDUM*
AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF
AMERICA CALIFORNIA, NA;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES
CORPORATION,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 12, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Donald Cloyce Wagda, Esq., appeals pro se the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against Bank of

America, NA and its subsidiaries alleging that they improperly escheated items of

federal property to the state under California’s Unclaimed Property Law rather

than returning them to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for

failure to join an indispensable party, and de novo any questions of law.

Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the State of

California is a necessary and indispensable party whose joinder is infeasible. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) & (b); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric.

Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming

dismissal of an action under Rule 19 because a party was necessary and

indispensable but its joinder was infeasible because it was entitled to sovereign

immunity); Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“[S]tates . . . enjoy sovereign immunity from liability under the FCA.”).

      We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2