Donald Wagda v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 12, 2024
• Docket: 22-16846
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD CLOYCE WAGDA, No. 22-16846

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01064-DAD-DB v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF MEMORANDUM* AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA, NA; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 12, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, 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). Donald Cloyce Wagda, Esq., appeals pro se the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against Bank of

America, NA and its subsidiaries alleging that they improperly escheated items of

federal property to the state under California’s Unclaimed Property Law rather

than returning them to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for

failure to join an indispensable party, and de novo any questions of law.

Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the State of

California is a necessary and indispensable party whose joinder is infeasible. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) & (b); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric.

Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming

dismissal of an action under Rule 19 because a party was necessary and

indispensable but its joinder was infeasible because it was entitled to sovereign

immunity); Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“[S]tates . . . enjoy sovereign immunity from liability under the FCA.”).

We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.