FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 26 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR GARCIA, No. 13-16528
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:11-cv-00470-RCJ-VPC
v.
REGIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES MEMORANDUM*
CORPORATION and MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 21, 2016**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: HAWKINS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and SOTO,*** District
Judge.
Oscar Garcia (“Garcia”) appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and adverse grant
of summary judgment. We affirm.
There was no abuse of discretion in judicially noticing mortgage and
foreclosure documents related to Garcia’s Nevada property. As matters of public
record they are proper subjects of judicial notice. See Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co.
of Nev., 591 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (records of real property transactions are
“official public records”); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Moreover, taking judicial notice of
the documents did not prejudice Garcia because the district court did not rely on them
in dismissing his claims. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th
Cir. 2011) (reversal based on erroneous evidentiary rulings requires showing
prejudice).
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting Melissa Hjorton’s
declaration. Hjorton demonstrated personal knowledge in her declaration. See
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir. 1990) (court can
infer personal knowledge from an affidavit itself).
***
The Honorable James Alan Soto, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
2
Finally, because Garcia did not specifically and distinctly address other issues
in his opening brief, they are abandoned on appeal. Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.,
797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) (court of appeals will not ordinarily consider
matters not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief).
AFFIRMED.
3