NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD WILLIAMS; JANN No. 17-15152
GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS,
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Williams and Jann Gwendolyn Williams appeal pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims
arising out of foreclosure proceedings. 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), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that defendants made false representations concerning the
title of the property at issue or that plaintiffs own or hold a beneficial interest in the
property. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.395(1), (5) (2015) (defining false
representations concerning title and setting forth requirements for bringing a civil
action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring plaintiffs to be
vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave
plaintiffs notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate
for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order
narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,
500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and
factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a
vexatious litigant).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 17-15152
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).
Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15152