NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY V. MICHAEL LEWIS, No. 17-15656 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish Shetty, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15656 D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03112-BLF Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. MICHAEL ALLEN LEWIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to a mortgage loan on real property obtained by third-party borrowers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a * 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shetty’s action for failure to join Maria Elena Martinez and Heriberto Martinez because the Martinezes, as the borrowers of mortgages on the subject property, are required parties. See id. (describing bases for concluding a party is required to join (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of certain public records and bankruptcy court documents, and considering documents referenced in Shetty’s complaint without converting defendants’ motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review, and describing documents that a district court may take judicial notice of when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion). We reject as unsupported by the record Shetty’s contention that the district judge denied his rights to due process and equal protection. We do not consider matters 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). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15656
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.
