DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA V. SUMMIT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, L, No. 19-15312 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15312 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01747-KJDCWH v. SUMMIT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees, and MTC FINANCIAL, INC.; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Dimitritza Toromanova appeals pro se from the district court’s order * 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). denying her motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Toromanova’s motion for relief from judgment because Toromanova failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)). 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). Toromanova’s emergency motion “to void relief from stay order” and seeking to enjoin foreclosure proceedings pending appeal is denied. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 158 (bankruptcy court orders may be appealed to the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel). Toromanova’s requests for judicial notice of the case record, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, are denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (composition of the record on appeal). AFFIRMED. 2 19-15312

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.