NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY L. PRYDE; DENISE E. PRYDE, No. 15-17041
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00926-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Gary L. Pryde and Denise L. Pryde appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims against
mortgage related entities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
*
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).
838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Prydes’ quiet title claim because
the Prydes failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that they were entitled to
such relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege
facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged”); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274,
1282 (Ariz. 2014) (requiring mortgagors to pay off any unsatisfied balances in
order to quiet title under Arizona law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Prydes’ motion
for leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile).
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.
2 15-17041