Raymond Feldman v. Bosco Credit Llc, a foreign entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND FELDMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOSCO CREDIT LLC, a foreign entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56470
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07439-AB-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Feldman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his diversity action seeking to set aside a state court judgment. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Progressive Cas.
Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any
* 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).
FILED
OCT 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56470
basis supported by the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360
F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Feldman’s
collateral attack on the state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
because Feldman’s action amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior,
final state court judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in
federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state
court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”).
We reject as without merit Feldman’s contention that he was entitled to
summary judgment in his favor based on the district court’s granting of the parties’
requests for judicial notice.
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 of 2 --