SHIZUE WHITE V. AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC, No. 17-15096 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED NOV 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIZUE S. WHITE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15096 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03251-DGC v. MEMORANDUM* AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Shizue S. White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to remand, Or. Bureau of Labor v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., * 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). 288 F.3d 414, 417 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly denied White’s motion to remand to state court because White failed to establish the requirements for abstention under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 87 F.3d 290, 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth requirements for Burford abstention and standard of review for whether abstention requirements have been met). In her opening brief, White fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her action, and thus she has waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15096

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.