Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique PEREZ; Bella Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15647
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Enrique Perez, Pro Se
    Bella Perez, Pro Se
    Diana N. Chinn, Litigation Counsel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Perez and Bella Perez appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1962f because the district court dismissed these claims with leave to amend and plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims after dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver).

Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by failing to address how the district court erred in dismissing it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

We do not consider allegations and 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.