Richard Breinholt v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation , 670 F. App'x 569 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD WILLIAM BREINHOLT; No. 12-35667
SUSAN LYN BREINHOLT,
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00466-EJL
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
AEGIS WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Richard William Breinholt and Susan Lyn Breinholt appeal pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law
foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040-41
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Breinholts’ claims against Aegis
Wholesale Corporation, OneWest Bank, FSB, Tri-County Process Serving LLC
(“Tri-County”), Regional Trustee Services Corporation, and Pioneer Lender
Trustee Services, LLC, as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the
Breinholts’ claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior state court
action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the
merits. See Pocatello Hosp., LLC v. Quail Ridge Med. Investor, LLC, 339 P.3d
1136, 1142 (Idaho 2014) (stating elements of res judicata under Idaho law and
holding that res judicata bars litigation of claims that were, or could have been,
raised in the prior action); Kawai Farms, Inc. v. Longstreet, 826 P.2d 1322, 1325-
26 (Idaho 1992) (under Idaho law, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice constitutes
a final judgment for purposes of res judicata); see also Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477
F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res
judicata to state court judgments).
The district court properly dismissed the Breinholts’ claims against
2 12-35667
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), TitleOne Corporation,
Jennifer Tait, and Robinson Tait, P.S., because the Breinholts failed to allege facts
sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1038-44 (explaining the recording system
and rejecting challenges to its validity); Edwards v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Inc., 300 P.3d 43, 49 (Idaho 2013) (“[H]aving MERS the named beneficiary as
nominee for the lender conforms to the requirements of a deed of trust under Idaho
law.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Breinholts’
motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because the
Breinholts failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and listing grounds warranting reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 275 P.3d 857,
863 (Idaho 2012) (under Idaho law, “a trustee may initiate nonjudicial foreclosure
proceedings on a deed of trust without first proving ownership of the underlying
3 12-35667
note”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
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).
Tri-County’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in its answering brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
4 12-35667