Mary A. Nelson Rogers v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.a.; Quality Loan Service, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY A. NELSON ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS
FAMILY TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.;
SCHOOLS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendants.
No. 22-15469
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02151-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15469
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mary A. Nelson Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial
of a motion to remand. Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th
Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Rogers’s motion to remand the case to
state court because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were met and the
only non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for diversity
jurisdiction); Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 2014) (a
national bank “is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located”);
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir.
2007) (exception to requirement for complete diversity exists where a non-diverse
defendant is fraudulently joined); Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313,
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15469
1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (“If the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a
resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the
state, the joinder of the resident defendant is fraudulent.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 163 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 804, 835-36 (Ct. App. 2013) (requirements of a quiet title claim under
California law).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
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 motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --