Wayne McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

Ninth Circuit

Wayne McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

667 F. App'x 245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket13-17483

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 245 (Wayne McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na) 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

Wayne McIntosh v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 667 F. App'x 245 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Wayne McIntosh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce the temporary restraining order because the order expired by its own terms one day after defendant removed the case, and McIntosh did not demonstrate that any party violated the restraining order. See Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review for motions to enforce injunctions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion to compel because discovery had closed and McIntosh did not demonstrate good cause for the untimely motion. See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion to strike depositions because McIntosh did not identify the depositions he sought to strike. See id.

*246 We reject McIntosh’s contention that Citibank, N.A. failed to appear because the record shows that Citibank, N.A. timely appeared and answered the complaint.

We reject McIntosh’s contention that the district court was biased or violated his due process or equal protection rights.

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.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wayne McIntosh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce the temporary restraining order because the order expired by its own terms one day after defendant removed the case, and McIntosh did not demonstrate that any party violated the restraining order. See Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review for motions to enforce injunctions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion to compel because discovery had closed and McIntosh did not demonstrate good cause for the untimely motion. See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McIntosh’s motion to strike depositions because McIntosh did not identify the depositions he sought to strike. See id.

*246 We reject McIntosh’s contention that Citibank, N.A. failed to appear because the record shows that Citibank, N.A. timely appeared and answered the complaint.

We reject McIntosh’s contention that the district court was biased or violated his due process or equal protection rights.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-mcintosh-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack