Salma Agha-Khan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALMA AGHA-KHAN, M.D., No. 18-16553 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02739-GMN- CWH v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC MEMORANDUM* REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., a mortgage registration system, Delaware corporation not registered to do business in

Nevada; MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC., parent of Mortgage Electronic Registrations

Systems Inc. not registered to do business in

Nevada; ASPEN MORTGAGE LLC, a

Nevada Limited Liability Corporation;

ASPEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, a Nevada business organization; JEFF GUINN;

ANGELA NAVA; AMANDA JONES;

PATRICIA DEAN; BANK OF AMERICA

CORPORATION; RECON TRUST

COMPANY; BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING, LP; COUNTRYWIDE HOME

LOANS SERVICING, L.P.; RECONTRUST

COMPANY, NA-NV MEDIATION TEAM;

MELISA MARTIN; TIFFANY MAYES;

MARIA C. RODRIGUEZ; DEEDRA

WILLIAMS; JAMES DIAZ; HATTIE

MOORE; VALINDA PICKENS; FIDELITY

NATIONAL DEFAULT; LSI TITLE

AGENCY, INC.; ANSELMO PAGKALIWANGAN; SERVICELINK;

BANK OF NEW YORK, FKA Bank of New

York; STEPHANIE Y. KING; CASTLE

AND COOKE MORTGAGE LLC;

LOANCARE; CHICAGE TITLE LAS

VEGAS; CHICAGO TITLE AGENCY

NEVADA, aka Chicago Title of Nevada,

Inc.; SARA HALL; GERRARD AND COX (LEGAL WINGS), aka Gerrard Cox and

Larsen; SHELDON ANDREW HERBERT;

DOUGLAS D. GERRARD; ESTHER

MEDELLIN; AKERMAN SENTERFITT,

LLP; NATALIE L. WINSLOW; CHET J.

COX; KRISTINA C. COX; NATIONWIDE

TITLE CLEARING, INC.; WELLS FARGO

HOME MORTGAGE; WELLS FARGO

FINANCIAL NATIONAL BANK; WELLS

FARGO BANK, N.A.; VLADIMIR

PETRICEVIC; CARDINAL FINANCIAL

COMPANY, LP; VERDUGO TRUSTEE

SERVICES CORPORATION; CITI

MORTGAGE INC.; CITIBANK, NA;

CITICORP; CITIGROUP; ABIGAIL L.

ROSS; TERRA WEST PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT; TERRA WEST

COLLECTIONS; JENNIFER A. EZELL;

MONIQUE D. WASHINGTON;

MICHELLE PETERSEN; SAN SEVINO

WEST AT SHD; SOUTHERN

HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY

ASSOCIATION; SAN SEVINO HOME

OWNER'S ASSOCIATION; TITLE

COURT SERVICES INC.; SHARON

TAYLOR; ALESSI TRUSTEE

CORPORATION; NORTH AMERICAN

TITLE COMPANY; SOUTHERN

HIGHLANDS MASTER; AILEEN RUIZ;

SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS MASTER

HOA; ALESSI AND KOENIG LLP; SAN

SEVINO WEST AT SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS HOA; ASSESSMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES; ARCH G.

NEBRON; HONG X. LAM; HEIDI

HAGEN; NAOMI EDEN; DAVID A.

ALESSI; RYAN KEONIG; NATHAN

HALL; ROBERT ALESSI,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2022** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Salma Agha-Khan, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of judicial estoppel. Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Agha-Khan’s action on the basis of judicial estoppel. The factual allegations in the complaint established that Agha-Khan was aware of, but failed to disclose, the existence of her claims in her bankruptcy proceeding, and Agha-Khan did not show that her failure to disclose was inadvertent or mistaken. See Ah Quin, 733 F.3d at 271-76 (explaining application of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context; where plaintiff-debtor reopens bankruptcy proceedings and corrects the initial filing error, the court will conduct inquiry into inadvertence or mistake).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Agha-Khan’s February 21, 2018 motion for disqualification because Agha-Khan failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (setting forth requirements for recusal), § 455 (setting forth circumstances requiring disqualification); United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review; under § 144 and § 455, the substantive standard for recusal is whether “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Agha-Khan’s contention that the district court ignored her motions for sanctions.

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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.