GOMEZ v. CALIBER HOME LOANS (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Marisela Dangcil Gomez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action arising from an alleged loan modification agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gomez's claims against defendant Caliber Home Loans because Gomez failed to file suit within four years of the claims’ alleged accrual. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (statute of limitations for breach of written contract or for breach of its implied covenant is four years).

Because Gomez voluntarily dismissed this appeal as to defendant Chase, we do not consider Gomez's claim under the California Homeowner's Bill of Rights because it was alleged only against Chase.

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.