Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin v. the Johns Hopkins University, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDREY DAGMAR TOMERLIN
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
INC.
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56695
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01255-GW-MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d
* 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 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56695
770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state court retains exclusive jurisdiction
over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the
subject of this dispute. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir.
1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction
over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see also Assoc. of Am.
Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing it).
We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in
the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Tomerlin’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns
Hopkins’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --