FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STERLING J. MORTENSEN; No. 13-35286
MAUREEN MORTENSEN,
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00298-EJL-
Plaintiffs-Appellants, LMB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sterling J. Mortensen and Maureen Mortensen appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims
related to the foreclosure of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Mortensens’ claim for damages
under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) because it is barred by the statute of
limitations and the Mortensens failed to plead facts demonstrating that equitable
tolling should apply. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA
must be brought within one year of the alleged violation).
The district court properly dismissed Mortensens’ claim for rescission under
TILA because the Mortensens have not alleged that they intend to or are able to
tender the amount loaned. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also
Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that
recission should be conditioned on repayment of the amounts advanced by the
lender).
The district court properly dismissed the Mortensens’ Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act claim because the Mortensens did not allege facts sufficient to
show that their inquiries required a response under the Act. See 12 U.S.C.
2 13-35286
§ 2605(e) (identifying service related inquires that require a loan servicer to
respond).
The district court properly dismissed the Mortensens’ claims predicated on
the alleged improper use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”) on the deed of trust because those claims are foreclosed by state law.
See Edwards v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 300 P.3d 43, 49 (Idaho 2013)
(“[H]aving MERS the named beneficiary as nominee for the lender conforms to the
requirements of a deed of trust under Idaho law.”); see also Diaz v. Kubler Corp.,
785 F.3d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When interpreting state law, we are bound
to follow the decisions of the state’s highest court . . .” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed the Mortensens’ claim for breach of
fiduciary duties against Countrywide Bank, FSB because mortgage lenders
generally do not owe borrowers a fiduciary duty, and the Mortensens failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that their relationship with Countrywide Bank, FSB
differed from that of a lender-borrower. See Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc.
V. Idaho First Nat’l Bank, N.A., 804 P.2d 900, 905 (Idaho 1991) (“[T]he
relationship in a lender-borrower situation is a debtor-creditor relationship, and not
a fiduciary relationship.”)
3 13-35286
To the extent the Mortensens’ claims are predicated on “robo-signing”
allegations, the district court properly dismissed those claims because the
Mortensens failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).
The Mortensens’ motion to augment the record filed on August 12, 2013 is
granted.
The Mortensens’ motion to take judicial notice filed September 5, 2013 is
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
4 13-35286