NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LELAND ANTHONY NEYER; JUNE E. No. 11-15722
NEYER,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01671-GEB-
Plaintiffs-Appellants, CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GMAC HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL
BANK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Leland Anthony Neyer and June E. Neyer appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Medrano v.
*
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).
Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Neyers’ action because the Neyers
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant failed to provide a
required disclosure under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. See 12
U.S.C. § 2605(e) (identifying service-related inquires that require a loan servicer to
respond); see also Medrano, 704 F.3d at 667 (“[L]etters challenging only a loan’s
validity or its terms are not qualified written requests that give rise to a duty to
respond under § 2605(e).”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot the Neyers’
motion for a preliminary injunction. See Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d
754, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for
a preliminary injunction).
We reject the Neyers’ contention that the district court improperly refused to
file their “fourth amended complaint.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (other than
amending a pleading once within certain time limits, “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15722