Christopher Martinez v. Central Mortgage Company , 683 F. App'x 631 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER S. MARTINEZ, No. 16-15587
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01190-JCM-PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,
subsidiary of Arvest Bank; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christopher S. Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal
*
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).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s state law claims because
Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Nev. Rev. Stat.
§ 107.080(5)(a) (court must declare a trustee sale void if the trustee fails to
substantially comply with the statutory requirements); Chapman v. Deutsche Bank
Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Nev. 2013) (“A plea to quiet title does not
require any particular elements, but each party must plead and prove his or her own
claim to the property in question and a plaintiff’s right to relief therefore depends
on superiority of title.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bulbman, Inc. v.
Nevada Bell, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (Nev. 1992) (setting forth elements of fraudulent
misrepresentation claim under Nevada law); Higgins v. Higgins, 744 P.2d 530, 531
(Nev. 1987) (setting forth elements of slander of title cause of action under Nevada
law); Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)
(wrongful foreclosure claim requires that no failure of performance existed on the
part of the borrower that would have authorized foreclosure).
To the extent that Martinez challenges the validity of any assignment of the
loan into a securitized trust, he lacks standing to raise such a challenge. See Wood
v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 861-62 (Nev. 2014) (per curiam).
2 16-15587
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act claim because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants made a false, deceptive, or misleading representation to him. See 15
U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting a “debt collector” from using “any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-15587