
    Michael SATTARI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-15763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Decided March 7, 2012.
    Michael Sattari, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Josh Cole Aicklen, Esquire, Marc Steven Cwik, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Sattari appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging fraud and deceptive trade practices under Nevada law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sattari’s claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices because Sattari failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CitiMortgage made any false representation that he justifiably relied on. See Nev.Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15) (consumer fraud under Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act encompasses deceptive practices, including knowingly making a “false representation in a transaction”); id. § 598.0917; Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (uncorroborated and self-serving testimony does not raise a genuine dispute of fact); J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004) (per curiam) (elements of fraud claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part Sattari’s counter-motion to compel. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2003) (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery....”).

Sattari’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     