United States v. 2020-05-13 | 19-55597 | JAY POTTER V. CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAY ELLIS POTTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE, INC.; et
al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55597

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01641-FMO-JC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Jay Ellis Potter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for improper venue his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of
the foreclosure and sale of his property in Tennessee. We review de novo.
Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS,

*
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

MAY 13 2020

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

2 19-55597
306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Potter’s action for improper venue
because Potter failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District
of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his
claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil
action may be brought); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“A district court of a district
in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss,
or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in
which it could have been brought.”).
We reject as meritless Potter’s contentions regarding leave to amend, and
defendant Cross Country Mortgage, Inc.’s alleged tacit consent to venue in the
Central District of California.
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 and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.