NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARISELA DANGCIL GOMEZ, No. 19-56317
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00866-AG-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIBER HOME LOANS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Marisela Dangcil Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action arising from an alleged loan modification agreement. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson
*
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).
v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gomez’s claims against defendant
Caliber Home Loans because Gomez failed to file suit within four years of the
claims’ alleged accrual. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (statute of limitations
for breach of written contract or for breach of its implied covenant is four years).
Because Gomez voluntarily dismissed this appeal as to defendant Chase, we
do not consider Gomez’s claim under the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights
because it was alleged only against Chase.
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 19-56317