Mildred Freeston v. Bishop, White & Marshall, P.S. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILDRED C. FREESTON and SHIRSHA No. 10-35312
SUMERU,
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05560-BHS
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM *
BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL, P.S.;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
PIERCE COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mildred C. Freeston and Shirsha Sumeru appeal pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s judgment dismissing their action under the Truth in Lending Act and state
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v.
California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ state law claims because
they failed to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud or intentional
infliction of emotional distress. See Stiley v. Block, 925 P.2d 194, 204 (Wash.
1996) (listing elements necessary for actionable fraud); Birklid v. Boeing Co., 904
P.2d 278, 286 (Wash. 1995) (listing elements necessary for an intentional infliction
of emotional distress claim).
We do not consider contentions not raised in the opening brief, or regarding
issues not raised below. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellants’ motions to supplement the record are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35312