eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-02

Bryan Booren v. Aelp Securitization Trust Seri ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
FEB 28 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN BOOREN; SHARIN R.                         No. 21-35323
METCALF,
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06163-RJB
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
AELP SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES
2015-1; WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB; MERSCORP HOLDINGS,
INC.; MB LAW GROUP LLP; MICHAEL J.
FARRELL; DAVID CRAMER; ZEIVE
BRODNAX & STEELE LLP; KINGSTON
D. BOWAN; SCOTT D. CRAWFORD; US
BANK, N.A.; TRUMAN 2016 SC 6 TITLE
TRUST; FNMA REMIC 2006-17 TRUST;
FANNIE MAE; FAY SERVICING, LLC;
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
*
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).
Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Booren and Sharin R. Metcalf appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging various federal and state law claims in
connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
affirm.
In their opening brief, appellants fail to challenge the dismissal of their
claims against the appearing defendants as barred by Rooker-Feldman and claim
preclusion and the dismissal of their claims against the non-appearing defendants
for failure to effect service of process. Moreover, in the district court, appellants
failed to raise any arguments opposing dismissal on these grounds. Appellants
have therefore waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of their action.
See Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp.,
    514 F.3d 1001
    , 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]f a
party fails to raise an objection to an issue before judgment, he or she waives the
right to challenge the issue on appeal.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,
    350 F.3d 925
    , 929 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA,
    28 F.3d 971
    , 977 (9th
Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
To the extent that appellants challenge the district court’s order denying their
motion to set a pretrial conference and hearing on summary judgment or to
2                                    21-35323
expedite the case, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See S. Cal. Edison
Co. v. Lynch,
    307 F.3d 794
    , 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that district courts have “inherent power” to control their dockets).
We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the district court failed to
afford appellants an opportunity to be heard.
Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted.
Appellees’ request to strike appellants’ opening brief, set forth in their answering
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                    21-35323