Elisabeth Detelder-Collins v. Wachovia Mortgage, Fsb , 457 F. App'x 685 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               NOV 03 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ELISABETH J. DE TELDER-COLLINS;                  No. 10-55498
    JOHN COLLINS,
    D.C. No. 5:09-cv-01574-JLQ-DTB
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, FKA
    World Savings Bank; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Elisabeth J. De Telder-Collins and John Collins appeal pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure
    proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    King v. California, 
    784 F.2d 910
    , 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm in part and
    dismiss in part.
    Appellants’ contentions, including those concerning Wachovia’s standing to
    proceed with foreclosure, are unpersuasive.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying appellants’
    motion to reconsider because appellants failed to separately appeal that order. See
    TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 
    915 F.2d 1351
    ,
    1354 (9th Cir. 1990).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam);
    Alaska v. United States, 
    201 F.3d 1154
    , 1163-1164 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Where a party
    does not ask the district court for leave to amend, ‘the request [on appeal] to
    remand with instructions to permit amendment comes too late.’” (citation
    omitted)).
    AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.
    2                                      10-55498