Enrique Perez v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC , 672 F. App'x 718 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                DEC 23 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ENRIQUE PEREZ; BELLA PEREZ,                      No. 16-15647
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,             D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02196-RS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Enrique Perez and Bella Perez appeal pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
    (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We affirm.
    Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claims under 15
    *
    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).
    U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1962f because the district court dismissed these claims with
    leave to amend and plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint. See Chubb
    Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 
    710 F.3d 946
    , 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013)
    (failure to replead claims after dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver).
    Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claim under 15
    U.S.C. § 1692g by failing to address how the district court erred in dismissing it.
    See Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments
    not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also
    Greenwood v. FAA, 
    28 F.3d 971
    , 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
    arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
    We do not consider allegations and arguments raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    16-15647
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-15647

Citation Numbers: 672 F. App'x 718

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023