Michael Sattari v. Citimortgage, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SATTARI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15763
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00769-RLH-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sattari appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his diversity action alleging fraud and deceptive trade practices under Nevada law.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Universal
FILED
MAR 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-15763 2
Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sattari’s claims
for fraud and deceptive trade practices because Sattari failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether CitiMortgage made any false representation
that he justifiably relied on. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15) (consumer fraud
under Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act encompasses deceptive practices,
including knowingly making a “false representation in a transaction”);
id. § 598.0917; Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.
2002) (uncorroborated and self-serving testimony does not raise a genuine dispute
of fact); J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 89 P.3d 1009,
1018 (Nev. 2004) (per curiam) (elements of fraud claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part Sattari’s
counter-motion to compel. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080,
1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or
deny discovery. . . .”).
Sattari’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

11-15763 3
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --