Court Opinion

ID: 9964682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:01:18.725736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.256270
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINOD SHARMA; VIJAY L. SHARMA,                  No. 22-16614

                Plaintiffs-Appellants,          D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00928-TLN-CKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
HSI ASSET LOAN OBLIGATION TRUST
2007-1; HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION
CORPORATION,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Vinod Sharma and Vijay L. Sharma appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from

a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

      *
             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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim

preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed the Sharmas’ action on the basis of

claim preclusion because the claims involved the same parties and primary right

raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

See Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th

Cir. 2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal

courts look to state law.”); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal.

2015) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law).

      The district court properly denied the Sharmas’ request to remand the action

or to sever and remand the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (stating that

district courts “shall have supplemental jurisdiction” in actions in which they have

original jurisdiction); § 1441(a) (setting forth basis for removal jurisdiction);

§ 1446(b) (setting forth procedures for timely removal); see also City of Oakland v.

BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903-08 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth standard of review

and analyzing denial of a motion to remand following removal on the basis of

federal question jurisdiction); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000-01

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and describing factors

district court should consider in deciding whether to decline or retain supplemental

                                           2                                        22-16614
jurisdiction).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

      We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See

United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      Defendant’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied as

unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                    22-16614