Merly Riger v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                               JUN 12 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    MERLY C.S. RIGER,                                No. 11-17661
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00233-RCJ-VPC
    and
    FISHER LIVING TRUST,                             MEMORANDUM*
    Intervenor-Plaintiff,
    v.
    FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN
    CORPORATION; METLIFE HOME
    LOANS, a division of Metlife Bank, N.A.;
    QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.;
    FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
    NEVADA; WESTERN TITLE
    COMPANY, INC.; HOMETOWN
    MORTGAGE, LLC; U.S. BANK, N.A.;
    CHICAGO TITLE AGENCY OF
    NEVADA, INC., DBA United Title of
    Nevada; NATIONAL DEFAULT
    SERVICING CORPORATION;
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
    REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;
    FIRST AMERICAN TITLE OF
    NORTHERN NEVADA,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 8, 2013**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Plaintiff-Appellant Merly C.S. Riger, a homeowner whose home loans have
    fallen into default, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her First Amended
    Complaint (“FAC”) without leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    12(b)(6). We affirm.
    Plaintiff challenges the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
    (“JPML”) transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Arizona (“MDL Court”) and the MDL Court’s order interpreting the JPML’s order.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the JPML’s order because Plaintiff has not sought a
    writ of mandamus. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1407
    (e); see In re Wilson, 
    451 F.3d 161
    , 168 (3d
    Cir. 2006). Plaintiff waived her challenge to the MDL Court’s order by not
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2
    “specifically and distinctly” arguing it in her opening brief. Kim v. Kang, 
    154 F.3d 996
    , 1000 (9th Cir. 1998).
    The district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment.
    Under Nevada law, unjust enrichment is not available when the parties had an
    express, written contract. LeasePartners Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust Dated
    Nov. 12, 1975, 
    942 P.2d 182
    , 187 (Nev. 1997). Assuming that unjust enrichment is
    available when a contract is procured by fraud, even if Plaintiff’s claim for unjust
    enrichment is read as challenging the validity of her loan contracts based on
    Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff did not plead fraud with the requisite particularity. See
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The FAC does not identify the specific content of any
    individual misrepresentation, where or when it was made, or which defendant
    made it. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 
    356 F.3d 1058
    , 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Because Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment fails, the district court also
    properly dismissed Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief,
    reformation, and quiet title. Moreover, Plaintiff does not challenge this ruling on
    appeal.
    Although a district court should grant leave to amend liberally, Chodos v. W.
    Publ’g Co., 
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002), here, the district court determined
    that Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint sought to add claims similar
    3
    to those transferred to the MDL Court by the JPML. The district court’s decision
    to deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend maintained the division of claims
    between the MDL Court and transferor courts as established by the JPML. The
    district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion. If Plaintiff
    wishes to amend her complaint with respect to the claims pending before the MDL
    Court, her motion to amend should be made in that court.
    AFFIRMED.
    4