Mers

MEMORANDUM

Debra March appeals from the district court’s order granting the defendants summary judgment and ordering foreclosure, and subsequent order confirming the foreclosure sale. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Pavoni v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 789 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2015), and a sale confirmation order for abuse of discretion, Indus. Mortg. Co., L.P. v. Smith, 94 Hawai’i 502, 17 P.3d 851, 859 (Ct. App. 2001). We have jurisdiction over this diversity suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

I

The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over U.S. Bank’s counterclaim for foreclosure and third-party complaint against the Hawaii Department of Taxation, a junior lienholder. Both claims arose “out of the same transaction or occurrence” and “relate[d] to the property that [was] the subject matter of the principal action.” Danner v. Himmelfarb, 858 F.2d 515, 521 (9th Cir. 1988); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (permitting courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are “so related to claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy”); see also Molina v. OneWest Bank, FSH, 903 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1016 (D. Haw. 2012)…