Ronald Williams v. National Default Servicing Co ( 2017 )

  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 26 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RONALD WILLIAMS; JANN                           No. 17-15152
                                                    D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK
     v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    CORPORATION; et al.,
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                                for the District of Nevada
                        Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
          Ronald Williams and Jann Gwendolyn Williams appeal pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims
    arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
                 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).
    § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v.
    547 F.3d 1055
    , 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
          Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege
    facts sufficient to show that defendants made false representations concerning the
    title of the property at issue or that plaintiffs own or hold a beneficial interest in the
    property. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.395(1), (5) (2015) (defining false
    representations concerning title and setting forth requirements for bringing a civil
          The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring plaintiffs to be
    vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave
    plaintiffs notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate
    for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order
    narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,
    500 F.3d 1047
    , 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and
    factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a
    vexatious litigant).
          We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
                                                2                                     17-15152
    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).
          Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
                                              3                                       17-15152