MAGDALENA PASCUA V. ONEWEST BANK, No. 17-15378 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAGDALENA MARCOS PASCUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15378 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00016-LEK-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* ONEWEST BANK, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Magdalena Marcos Pascua appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal claims arising out foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001), and 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). The district court properly dismissed Pascua’s action on the basis of the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine because Pascua and defendant were involved in a prior, concurrent foreclosure action concerning the same property in state court. See Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]here parallel state and federal proceedings seek to determine interests in specific property as against the whole world (in rem), or where the parties’ interests in the property . . . serve as the basis of the jurisdiction for the parallel proceedings (quasi in rem), then the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction fully applies.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (where a property is already under the in rem jurisdiction of a state court, the federal court must yield to the prior, concurrent state court proceeding). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15378
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.
