Donald Cloyce Wagda v. Bank of America, Na

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD CLOYCE WAGDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF
AMERICA CALIFORNIA, NA;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES
CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16846
D.C. No.
2:19-cv-01064-DAD-DB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
APR 12 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --