Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WANDA MARIE COHILL, No. 20-15483
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02479-JCM-EJY
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Wanda Marie Cohill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
*
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).
claim. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cohill’s action because Cohill failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Nev. Rev. Stat.
§ 11.190(3)(d)-(e) (three-year statute of limitations for misrepresentation claims);
Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of
breach of contract claim under Nevada law); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859,
861-862 (Nev. 2014) (holding that, under Nevada law, homeowner lacked standing
to challenge an assignment of a deed of trust as a non-party to the pooling service
agreement); Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prod. Inc., 808 P.2d 919, 923
(Nev. 1991) (elements of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim
under Nevada law); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Cohill’s contention that the district judge was
biased against her.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15483