BROWN v. BANK OF AMERICA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Shirley Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the foreclosure sale of her property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s wrongful foreclosure and fraud claims under California law because Brown failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 352, 102 P.3d 268, 274 (2004) (elements of fraud claim); Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn., 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219, 226 (2016) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim). Brown’s contention that the bankruptcy of LandAmerica Financial Group, the parent company of the original trustee under the deed of trust, rendered these foreclosure proceedings wrongful is unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters 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).

AFFIRMED.