22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44d,MEMORANDUM James L. Jones, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment in Jones’s quiet title action because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the mortgagee’s interest in the subject proper ty had been satisfied. See Farrell v. West, 57 Ariz. 490 , 114 P.2d 910, 911 (1941) (where “it appears there is an unsatisfied balance due to a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court will not quiet the title until and unless [plaintiff] pays off such mortgage lien”). We deny Jones’s request for judicial notice set forth in his opening brief. We reject Jones’s contentions regarding subject matter jurisdiction and due process in the district court. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47f,

MEMORANDUM

James L. Jones, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in Jones’s quiet title action because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the mortgagee’s interest in the subject proper ty had been satisfied. See Farrell v. West, 57 Ariz. 490 , 114 P.2d 910, 911 (1941) (where “it appears there is an unsatisfied balance due to a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court will not quiet the title until and unless [plaintiff] pays off such mortgage lien”).

We deny Jones’s request for judicial notice set forth in his opening brief. We reject Jones’s contentions regarding subject matter jurisdiction and due process in the district court.

AFFIRMED.

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