
    Fareed SEPEHRY-FARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16264
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    Fareed Sepehry-Fard, Pro Se
    Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Recontrust Company, N.A., U.S. Bank National Association, Marin Conveyancing Corp,, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
    Cara Lynne Finan, Attorney, Keesal Young & Logan, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee California Reconveyance Company
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Sepehry-Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to show any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a “substantial federal question”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).

We do not consider any claims that Se-pehry-Fard did not properly raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due process are unpersuasive.

In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard’s claims.

Sepehry-Fard’s pending motions are denied.

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