SOLANO v. WELLS FARGO BANK (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jose R. SOLANO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56892

Decided: February 26, 2019

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jose R. Solano, Pro Se Louis C. Nemeth, Pro Se Al McZeal, Pro Se Carmelita Rupnow, Pro Se Ivory Chopin, Pro Se Arlene Hudson, Pro Se Frederic Glade, Pro Se Soledad Solano, Pro Se Colin Dailey, Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, CA, John C. Dineen, Esquire, Attorney, Matthew Guy Halgren, Attorney, Mark Gerard Rackers, Esquire, Attorney, Edward D. Vogel, Esquire, Karin Dougan Vogel, Esquire, Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Timothy A. Burnett, Attorney, Hall Griffin LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Nationstar Mortgage LLC Colin Dailey, Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants - Appellees JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Carolee A. Hoover, Anthony Le, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Bank of America, N.A. Carolee A. Hoover, Anthony Le, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, Colin Dailey, Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Joseph M. Rossini, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Cerritos, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Mackie, Wolf, Zienz, Mann, PC. Elissa D. Miller, SulmeyerKupetz, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants - Appellees MidSouth National Bank, NA, Jay L. Angelle Nabeel M. Zuberi, Attorney, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants - Appellees NBS Default Services, LLC, Buckley Madole, PC, Mark D. Estie Christian C. Chapman, Attorney, Rudderow Law Group, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP Eric Gene Fernandez, I, Esquire, Attorney, TFLG, A Law Corporation, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants - Appellees TFLG, Noah M. Bean Nadine Sayegh, Attorney, The Law Offices of Nadine M. Sayegh, Escondido, CA, for Defendants - Appellees Ishak Bishara, Anne Marie Bishara Timothy A. Burnett, Pro Se

MEMORANDUM **

Jose R. Solano and other plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from mortgage-related proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal under its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against defendants MidSouth Bank, N.A. and Jay L. Angelle because plaintiffs failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document ․ may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion․ ”); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).

The district did not abuse its discretion in finding that all defendants complied with Local Rule 7-3 because defendants made efforts to contact plaintiffs regarding their motions to dismiss. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court's interpretation of its local rules.”); see also U.S. Cellular Inv. Co. of L.A., Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, Inc., 281 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court abuses its discretion “when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable man or woman would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

Because plaintiffs in their opening brief fail to specifically and distinctly raise any other argument as to whether the district court's sua sponte dismissal of all remaining defendants was proper, plaintiffs have waived any challenge to the dismissal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's opening brief are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) ).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the district court violated plaintiffs’ due process rights.

Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 35) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network