Case ID: br_578/html/0682-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: William F. NORDEEN and Carol A. Nordeen, Debtors. William F. Nordeen; Carol A. Nordeen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15922
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    William F. Nordeen, Pro Se
    Carol A. Nordeen, Pro Se
    Edward J. Peterson, III, Esquire, Attorney, Stichter Riedel Blain & Prosser PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.
    Jacob Bundick, Attorney, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Annapoorni R. Sankaran, Esquire, Greenberg Traurig, P.A, Miami, FL, Jacob S, Smith, Henness & Haight, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 13 debtors Carol A. Nordeen and William F. Nordeen appeal pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders disposing of the Nordeens’ action alleging federal and state law claims related to a mortgage on real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.), 431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment on the Nordeens’ quiet title claim because the Nordeens failed to show that their mortgage loan had been forgiven or that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC claimed an adverse interest in their property. See id. (setting forth standard of review); Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Nev. 2013) (setting forth elements of quiet title action under Nevada law).

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Nordeens’ remaining state law claims because the Nordeens failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (setting forth elements of fraudulent misrepresentation claim under Nevada law); Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 114 Nev. 1468, 970 P.2d 98, 110 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds byGES, Inc. v. Corbitt, 117 Nev. 265, 21 P.3d 11 (2001) (setting forth elements of fraudulent concealment claim under Nevada law).

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Nordeens’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim because the Nordeens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, made a false, deceptive, or misleading representation to them. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting a “debt collector” from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against Taylor, Bean & Whitaker because the Nor-deens failed to serve the summons and complaint in a proper manner or to show good cause for their failure to do so. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(a)(1) (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) applicable to bankruptcy cases); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing good cause and district court’s broad discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) to extend time for service or to dismiss the action without prejudice).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nordeens’ motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) because the Nordeens failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and listing grounds warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We reject as without merit the Nor-deens’ contention that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by.Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.