JOHNSON v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Steven L. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his diversity action arising out of a trial payment plan to avoid foreclosure on his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson's breach of contract claim because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Nationstar breached the trial payment plan agreement. See Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (2011) (elements of breach of contract claim under California law).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson's California Civil Code § 2923.7 claim because Johnson failed to raise a triable dispute of material fact as to whether Nationstar failed to provide a single point of contact. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.7(b), (e) (listing requirements and describing responsibilities of a single point of contact).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson's negligence claim because Johnson failed to raise a triable dispute of material fact as to whether Nationstar breached any duty of care owed to Johnson in considering him for a loan modification. See Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 45 Cal.4th 1244, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d 1127, 1132 (2009) (elements of negligence claim under California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's motion for a leave to file an amended complaint because any amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment because Johnson failed to demonstrate any grounds 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 explaining circumstances warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

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.