DONALD BRANDT V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, No. 19-55471 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD K. BRANDT; TZIPORA BRANDT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-55471 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08545-VAPAFM MEMORANDUM* NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Donald K. Brandt and Tzipora Brandt appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the foreclosure of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, * 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). 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Brandts’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a “de facto appeal” of prior state court decisions and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 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 19-55471
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.
