Case ID: f-appx_644/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry HOANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., all board of directors, officers and unknown owners, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-35799.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 4, 2016.
    Jerry Hoang, Des Moines, WA, pro se.
    Steven J. Dixson, Christopher George Varallo, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, Steven Andrew Ellis, Goodwin Procter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerry Hoang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hoang’s action because Hoang failed to allege facts sufficient to state any claim for relief. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wash.App. 166, 367 P.3d 600, 176-78, 2016 WL 107783, at *5 (Wash.Ct.App. Jan. 11, 2016) (holding trustee for a mortgage backed security into which plaintiffs loan had been transferred had authority to commence foreclosure proceedings and that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment into the trust); Walker v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 176 Wash.App. 294, 308 P.3d 716, 728 (2013) (rejecting the argument that the naming of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as beneficiary renders a deed of trust void).

The district court properly denied Hoang’s motion to remand because it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction).

We do not consider Hoang’s arguments raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1046, 1062 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

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