AUDREY TOMERLIN V. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, No. 15-56695 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUDREY DAGMAR TOMERLIN Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56695 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01255-GW-MAN v. MEMORANDUM* THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, INC. Defendant-Appellee. 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). 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 15-56695

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.