Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph GREEN; David A. Barron; Marcella A. Barron; John S. Benson; Manuel C. Castillo, Sr.; Oscar G. Cortez; Krisztina Dombrovari; Thomas G. Filiatreau; Vicki S. Filiatreau; Gustavo Garcia; Carleen Harmon; Robb C. Kelley; Timothy L. King; Carol A. King; Margarita Larkins; John E. Larkins; Gabriel Larkins; Jose Lopez; David A. Mahlin; Sandra C. Mahlin; Denise A. Mendoza; Guillermo A. Mendoza, Jr.; Douglas B. Moore; Doug Moreau; Dale W. Peterson; Jeri S. Peterson; Nancy Quinteroorozco; Jaime Zamorano; Bret E. Riggs; Steven A. Stapleton; Shendale R. Stapleton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a New York corporation; Recontrust Company; Litton Loan Servicing; Aurora Loan Services; CR Title Services, Inc.; Housekey Financial Corporation; Quality Loan Service Corporation; National Default Servicing Corporation; Fidelity National Title Insurance Company; NDEX West, LLC; the Bank of New York Mellon; GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; National City Mortgage, a foreign company and a division of National City Bank, a subsidiary of National City Corporation; National City Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of PNC Financial Services, Inc.; PNC Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation; Citimortgage, Inc., a New York corporation; HSBC Mortgage Corporation, U.S.A., a Delaware corporation; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, a California corporation, DBA Wells Fargo Home Equity, DBA Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; Bank of America, NA, a Delaware corporation; National City Bank, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17663.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed June 12, 2014.
    Treva Hearne, Esquire, General, Hager & Hearne, Reno, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Jacob D. Bundick, Esquire, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Gary Edward Schnitzer, Esquire, Kravitz, Schnitzer, Sloane and Johnson, Richard H. Bryan, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Cynthia Lynn Alexander, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Chad R. Fears, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Kristin Schu-ler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esquire, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Donna M. Osborn, Esquire, Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP, Neil Ackerman, Neil Ackerman Esq., LLC, Adam Kyle Bult, Esquire, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Thomas Hefferon, Joseph Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC, Erica Stutman, Gregory J. Marshall, Patrick G. Byrne, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, Robert Bruce Allensworth, Kirkpatrick & Lock-hart, Preseton Gates Ellis LLP, Gregory N. Blase, Brian M. Forbes, Esquire, K & L Gates LLP, Boston, MA, Hugh Balsam, Thomas Justin Cunningham, J. Matthew Goodin, Phillip Russell Perdew, R. Russell Perdew, Locke Lord LLP, Lucia Nale, Thomas V. Panoff, Mayer Brown, LLP, Leann Pedersen Pope, Esquire, Danielle Jean Szukala, Esquire, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., Chicago, IL, Leslie Bryan Hart, Courtney Miller O’Mara, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Michael R. Kealy, Esquire, Parsons Behle & La-timer, Reno, NV, Robin Prema Wright, Esquire, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Edward A. Treder, Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss LLP, Diamond Bar, CA, David Ray Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, Laurel I. Handley, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, Ira S. Lefton, Esquire, Henry Faulkner Reichner, Esquire, Reed Smith LLP, David H. Pittinsky, Esquire, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, homeowners whose home loans have fallen into default, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their Proposed First Amended Complaint (“PFAC”) without leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Plaintiffs challenge the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (“MDL Court”) and the MDL Court’s order interpreting the JPML’s order. We lack jurisdiction to review the JPML’s order because Plaintiffs have not sought a writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e); Robinson v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.), No. 11-17615, 754 F.3d 772, 780, 2014 WL 2611314, at *5 (9th Cir.2014). Plaintiffs waived their challenge to the MDL Court’s order by not “specifically and distinctly” arguing it in their opening brief. Kim v. Kang, 154 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir.1998).

On remand from the MDL Court, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment. Under Nevada law, unjust enrichment is not available when the parties had an express, written contract. Leasepartners Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust Dated Nov. 12, 1975, 113 Nev. 747, 942 P.2d 182, 187 (1997).

Even if unjust enrichment is available when a contract is procured by fraud, Plaintiffs did not plead fraud with particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The PFAC is “shot through with general allegations that the ‘defendants’ engaged in fraudulent conduct.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 765 (9th Cir.2007). It does not “identify the role of each defendant in the alleged fraudulent scheme.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does it identify the specific content of any individual misrepresentation, where or when it was made, or which defendant made it to which plaintiff. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment fails, the district court also properly dismissed their requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Although a district court should grant leave to amend liberally, the court may deny leave if amendment would be futile. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). Because the PFAC did not state a claim for relief, the district court’s decision that the amendment would be futile was not an abuse of discretion. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.