FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES L. RUCKER; JUDITH L. No. 12-55333
RUCKER,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09008-JAK-JEM
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Successor
by Merger with Wachovia Mortgage FSB
formerly World Savings Bank FSB,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Charles and Judith Rucker appeal from the district court’s summary
judgment for Wells Fargo Bank in the Ruckers’ action arising from foreclosure
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Ruckers’ quiet title claims
were barred by the superior court’s earlier judgment in Wells Fargo’s unlawful
detainer action against the Ruckers. See City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading &
Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 2003) (res judicata under California
law); Malkoskie v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821, 825-27 (Ct.
App. 2010) (judgment in unlawful detainer action brought under Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 1161a necessarily resolves validity of title).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Ruckers’
promissory estoppel claim because the Ruckers failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether they were harmed by Wells Fargo Bank’s behavior. See
Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 131 Cal. Rptr. 836, 839 (Ct. App. 1976)
(elements of promissory estoppel cause of action).
Because we affirm summary judgment on the bases discussed above, we do
not consider the Ruckers’ arguments concerning preemption, standing, and tender.
We also do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
2 12-55333
The Ruckers’ request for judicial notice, filed on August 19, 2013, is denied.
Wells Fargo Bank’s requests to strike the request for judicial notice, and for an
admonishment to the Ruckers’ counsel to adhere to the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, set forth in its August 29, 2013 response, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-55333