
    Robert James DEMETRIOU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-56657.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
    Robert James Demetriou, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.
    Sung-Min Christopher Yoo, Esquire, Al-varadosmith, APC, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert James Demetriou appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. had statutory authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. See Cal. Civ.Code § 2924(a)(1) (a “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure process); see also Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 912, 928 (2013) (holding that a loan servicer, as agent for the beneficiary, may record a notice of default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819, 824 (2011) (California law does not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized” absent “a specific factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct party”).

We do not consider Demetriou’s judicial estoppel argument because it was raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009).

Appellee’s uncontested request for judicial notice, filed on June 13, 2013, is granted.

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