Petra Martinez; Stanley Atkinson v. America’Swholesale Lender

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETRA MARTINEZ; STANLEY
ATKINSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16268

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-02869-LHK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S.

*
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).
FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16268
Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction were met, as the amount in controversy was over $75,000.00 and all
parties were citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c)(1) (setting
forth requirements of diversity jurisdiction and explaining that for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State
. . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its
principal place of business”); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010)
(explaining that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is “the place where
the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities”).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. See Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865,
884 (9th Cir. 2007) (in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue
“we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment]
would apply”); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297, 306-07 (Cal. 2002)
(California’s doctrine of res judicata).
We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contention that defendants committed
“fraud upon the court.”
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

3 19-16268
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.