Lukashin v. Allianceone Receivables Management Inc. , 617 F. App'x 812 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGOR LUKASHIN; HEATHER F. No. 13-35429
LUKASHIN,
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05880-RBL
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT INC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Igor Lukashin and Heather F. Lukashin appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law arising out of state court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
proceedings relating to an unpaid utility account. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of the Lukashins’ action was proper because the Lukashins failed
to allege facts sufficient to shows that defendants’ alleged conduct was actionable.
See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(A), (10) (prohibiting “[t]he false representation of . . .
the character, amount, or legal status of any debt” and “[t]he use of any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” under
the FDCPA); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.16.250(15), (21) (prohibiting collection of
unauthorized fees under the Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”));
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.440 (declaring violations of Wash. Rev. Code
§ 19.16.250 to be violations of Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”));
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.16.500(b) (authorizing statutory collection fee); see also
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim).
2 13-35429
Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because
amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2010) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district
court should grant leave to amend unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured
by the allegation of other facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider issues or arguments 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) (per
curiam).
The Lukashins’ request for judicial notice of the state court superior and
appellate court dockets, filed on May 1, 2014, is granted, but is otherwise denied as
unnecessary. All other pending motions are denied.
All pending requests in the Lukashins’ opening brief are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35429