Jose Solano v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE R. SOLANO; et al., No. 17-56892
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05253-JFW-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose R. Solano and other plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s
order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from
mortgage-related proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal under its local rules.
*
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).
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims
against defendants MidSouth Bank, N.A. and Jay L. Angelle because plaintiffs
failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The
failure to file any required document . . . may be deemed consent to the granting or
denial of the motion . . . . ”); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be
considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules and
noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).
The district did not abuse its discretion in finding that all defendants
complied with Local Rule 7-3 because defendants made efforts to contact plaintiffs
regarding their motions to dismiss. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223
(9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its
local rules.”); see also U.S. Cellular Inv. Co. of L.A., Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc.,
281 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court abuses its discretion “when the
judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable man or
woman would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (citation, alteration, and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because plaintiffs in their opening brief fail to specifically and distinctly
raise any other argument as to whether the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
all remaining defendants was proper, plaintiffs have waived any challenge to the
2 17-56892
dismissal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Acosta–
Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by
argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to establish any basis for 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 grounds for reconsideration under
Rule 60(b)).
We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court
violated plaintiffs’ due process rights.
Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 35) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-56892