Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy DIETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Timothy Dietz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We do not consider Dietz’s substantive claims because Dietz failed to challenge the district court’s judgment on those claims in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering attachments to the complaint and matters of public record in ruling on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard review and explaining the circumstances in which the district court may consider documents extraneous to the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the declaration filed in support of Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP’s motion for summary judgment because the declaration was made with personal knowledge, and the substance of the declaration could be admitted at trial under the business-records exception to hearsay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (requiring that a declaration be made on personal knowledge); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); SEC v. Phan, 500 F.3d 895, 912 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the district court’s refusal to exclude evidence in its consideration of summary judgment warrants reversal only when the “evidentiary ruling was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial” (citation omitted) ).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-35982
Decided: March 30, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)