Rodrick Silas v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 16 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RODRICK J. SILAS,                               No.    17-16689
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00012-DAD-JLT
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
    and U.S. BANK, N.A., successor trustee to
    LaSalle Bank National Association, on
    behalf of the holders of Bear Steams Asset
    Backed Securities I Trust 2006-AQ1, Asset-
    Backed Certificates Series 2006-AQ1,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 13, 2018**
    San Francisco, California
    Before:      LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Rodrick J. Silas appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment orders
    *
    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).
    denying his motions to reconsider the dismissal of his action alleging federal and
    state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J
    Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We may
    affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys.,
    LP, 
    534 F.3d 1116
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Silas’s motion for
    reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (b)(6) because
    Silas failed to establish any basis for relief. See Lehman v. United States, 
    154 F.3d 1010
    , 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used “sparingly as an equitable
    remedy to prevent manifest injustice” (citation omitted)); Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark,
    Inc., 
    536 F.2d 862
    , 870 n.15 (9th Cir. 1976) (explaining that it is “not the proper
    function of a Rule 60(b) motion” to “attempt[ ] to reargue the primary appeal”),
    partially superseded on other grounds by Fed. R. App. P. 4. Even if the district
    court erred in not reconsidering the dismissal of Silas’s Fair Debt Collection
    Practices Act or wrongful foreclosure claims on the basis of res judicata, any such
    error was harmless because the claims failed on their merits. See 15 U.S.C.
    §§ 1692e, 1692g; In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 
    754 F.3d 772
    , 784 (9th
    Cir. 2014) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim under California law); see also
    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
    2                                      17-16689
    contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
    plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    The district court properly denied Silas’s motion for reconsideration under
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because the motion was untimely. See Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed no later than
    28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). Even if the motion was construed as a
    motion under Rule 60(b), the district court properly denied the motion because
    Silas failed to establish any basis for relief and any error in denying the motion was
    harmless. See 
    Lehman, 154 F.3d at 1017
    ; Crateo, 
    Inc., 536 F.2d at 870
    n.15; Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 61.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                     17-16689