LNV CORPORATION V. DENISE SUBRAMANIAM, No. 15-35963 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 6 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35963 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. DENISE SUBRAMANIAM, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Denise Subramaniam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in LNV Corporation’s diversity action arising out of judicial foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 granted summary judgment because Subramaniam failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether LNV was not entitled to judicial foreclosure. See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 73.0301, 86.71086.715, Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 303 P.3d 301, 315 (Or. 2013) (en banc) (“A trust deed follows the promissory note that it secures.”); Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Walmsley, 374 P.3d 937, 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (concluding plaintiff entitled to enforce a promissory note where plaintiff established “that it possessed the note at the time of the foreclosure action and that the note was indorsed to plaintiff.”). We reject as unsupported by the record Subramaniam’s contention that the district court was biased against her. 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). We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 61, 66, 71, 73, 75, and 76) and requests (Docket Entry No. 67) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35963