Audrey Tomerlin v. the Johns Hopkins University

Ninth Circuit

Audrey Tomerlin v. the Johns Hopkins University

689 F. App'x 578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2017

Docket15-56695

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 689 F. App'x 578 (Audrey Tomerlin v. the Johns Hopkins University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Audrey Tomerlin v. the Johns Hopkins University, 689 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state *579 court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the subject of this dispute. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see also Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).

We do not consider issues 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).

Tomerlin’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns Hopkins’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tomerlin’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Maryland state *579 court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement that is the subject of this dispute. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (court where settlement agreement was entered retains exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement); see also Assoc. of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).

We do not consider issues 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).

Tomerlin’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) and Johns Hopkins’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 28) are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 F. App'x 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/audrey-tomerlin-v-the-johns-hopkins-university-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack