NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. BANK, N.A., as trustee for Greenpoint No. 18-35903
Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR4, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee, MEMORANDUM*
v.
TERENCE EDWARDS,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant,
and
WEST COAST SERVICING, INC.; et al.,
Defendants,
v.
ROBINSON TAIT PS; CRAIG
PETERSON,
Counter-defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Terence Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in U.S. Bank, N.A.’s foreclosure action arising out of judicial foreclosure
proceedings. Edwards also filed a countercomplaint alleging federal and state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact to whether he offered a valid
tender of his obligation under the loan. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 81.010; Crane v.
Mabry, 802 P.2d 696, 699-700 (Or. Ct. App. 1990) (explaining that § 81.010 was
not intended to supersede the common law requirement that the person making the
written tender have the present ability to make the tender good).
We do not consider Edward’s counterclaims based on alleged improper
assignments because Edwards was provided with leave to amend these claims but
failed to replead them in his operative countercomplaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with leave to amend
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 18-35903
are waived if not repled).
We reject as without merit U.S. Bank’s contention that this court lacks
jurisdiction over this appeal because prior to summary judgment all of the
remaining counter-defendants had been dismissed or had a default judgment
entered against them.
We 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).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-35903