LEVI LAKE V. PREMIER FINANCIAL SERVICES INC, No. 17-35759 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEVI A. LAKE, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35759 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00495-JLR v. MEMORANDUM* PREMIER FINANCIAL SERVICES INC, Defendant, and MTGLQ INVESTORS LP, a Delaware limited partnership; OHIO SAVINGS BANK, AKA AmTrust Bank, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. * 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). Levi A. Lake appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging a quiet title claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lake failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was entitled to quiet title on his property. See Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.120 (elements of quiet title claim); Walker v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 308 P.3d 716, 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013), as modified (Aug. 26, 2013) (“A plaintiff in an action to quiet title must prevail, if he prevails at all, on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary.” (citation omitted)); see also 4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, P.S., 382 P.3d 1, 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (the deed of trust foreclosure remedy is subject to a six-year statute of limitations). 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 17-35759

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.