Jack R. Finnegan v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; JAYME L. BOWMAN, FKA Jayme Heller

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK R. FINNEGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
JAYME L. BOWMAN, FKA Jayme Heller,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56404
D.C. No. 8:17-cv-01129-AG-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jack R. Finnegan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a denial of a motion to remand.
Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
* 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
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56404
The district court properly denied Finnegan’s motion to remand his action to
state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 1988) (a federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim falls within the district
court’s original jurisdiction and is removable under § 1441(a), notwithstanding
concurrent state court jurisdiction).
We reject as unsupported by the record Finnegan’s contentions regarding
defendants’ violation of local rules with regard to service and the meet and confer
requirements.
We reject as without merit Finnegan’s contention that the district court
lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finnegan’s requests for costs and sanctions, set forth in the opening and
reply briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --