NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1

2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3

4

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5

6

APRIL E. DIGGS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56729

D.C. No. 5:17

- cv

- 01089

- AG

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

7

Appeal from the United States District Court 8

for the Central District of California 9

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding 10

11

Submitted October 22 , 2018 ** 12

13

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 14

15

April E. Diggs appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 16

action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and 17

state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 18

district court’s dis missal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56729

12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th 1

Cir. 2011). We affirm. 2

The district court properly dismissed Digg s ’s action because Diggs failed to 3

allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 4

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient 5

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausibl e on its 6

face” (citation and int e rnal quotation marks omitted)); see also 15 U.S.C. 7

§§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692g; Cal. Civ. Code § 29 34a(d) ( “ O nce recorded, the 8

substitution [of trustee] shall constitute conclusive evidence of the authority of the 9

substituted trustee or his or her agents t o act pursuant to this section

. ”); Cal. Civ. 10

Code § 3412; Aceves v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218

, 518

- 19 ( Cal. App. 11

2011 ) (noting that § 2934a does not preclude attorney

- in

- fact from signing 12

substit

u tion on behalf of beneficiary). 13

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Diggs leave to file 14

an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. 15

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 16

standar d of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper 17

when amendment would be futile). 18

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of 19

publicly recorded documents

. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 688 203 17

- 56729

(9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standar d review and explaining that court may take 1

judicial notice of matters of public record ). 2

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Diggs’ s motion 3

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Diggs failed to show that her 4

opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss would have precluded dismissal or that 5

leave to amend would not have been futile

. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 6

Or. v. ACandS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of 7

review an d grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ). 8

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 9

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009 ). 10

AFFIRMED. 11