MORADI v. RECONTRUST COMPANY (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Kambiz Moradi and Homa Moradi appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In their opening brief, the Moradis fail to address how the district court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that their claims were time-barred. As a result, the Moradis have waived their challenge to the district court's order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A plaintiff may not try to amend her complaint through her arguments on appeal.”).

We reject as without merit the Moradis’ contention that the district court should have voided the foreclosure sale “on its own motion.”

AFFIRMED.