Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael B. SPARLIN; Sharon J. Sparlin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, originally named as Bank of America Home Loans; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15901.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2013.
    Michael B. Sparlin, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Sharon J. Sparlin, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Coree Elizabeth Neumeyer, Robert W. Shely, I, Litigation Counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, Douglas Erickson, Jennifer Reiter, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael B. and Sharon J. Sparlin appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their three consolidated actions arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Sparlins’ actions because, despite detailed instructions from the court on how to cure the defects in their original complaints, the Sparlins failed to allege any specific facts in their amended complaint showing that they were entitled to relief on any of their seven federal and state law claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); see also Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir.2013) (“Arizona law recognizes a successor trustee’s authority to initiate and conduct a foreclosure sale after the borrowers’ default, without any requirement that the beneficiary demonstrate possession of the note underlying the deed of trust.”).

The Sparlins’ contentions regarding the denial of discovery, their requests for admissions, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction are unpersuasive.

We do not consider the Sparlins’ arguments, raised for the first time in their reply brief, regarding defendants alleged failure to provide a credible witness. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

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