NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTELITA T. TERRADO, No. 19-15677

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00148-DKW-RLP

v.

MEMORANDUM*

U.S. BANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

SANDY WONG,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Estelita T. Terrado appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing her foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Guitierrez, 545

F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2008) (lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,

1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Terrado’s claims related to the

foreclosure of her property for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine because they are a “de facto appeal” of decisions of the Hawaii

state court and are “inextricably intertwined” with those state court decisions. See

Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163; see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855,

859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the

federal claims would undercut the state ruling” (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Terrado’s claims on behalf of her aunt

for lack of standing. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Services

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (to satisfy constitutional standing

requirements, a plaintiff must show she has suffered an injury in fact that is fairly

traceable to the challenged action of the defendant).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terrado’s motions

for default because Terrado failed to effect proper service on U.S. Bank. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c); see also Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-24; Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C.

2 19-15677 v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terrado’s motion

for reconsideration because Terrado failed to establish any basis for relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

3 19-15677