Stephen Edwards v. Phh Mortgage Corporation ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 9 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, No. 19-15997
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04040-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Stephen S. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the foreclosure
proceedings on his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
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).
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action because Edwards
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See 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 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).
PHH Mortgage Corporation’s request for fees and costs on appeal set forth
in its answering brief is denied without prejudice to the filing of a timely bill of
costs and motion for attorney’s fees under Fed. R. App. P. 39 and 9th Cir. R. 39-1.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-15997