N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HAYO B R IGGS, a

M a le individual; AB R AHAM VEGA M O RENO, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, a Na t iona l B anking Assoc iation a s Truste e for M orga n Sta nle y AB S C a pita l Inc , Hom e Equity

Trust 2005-HE7, Errone ously

Sue d As De utsc he B an k Nationa l Trust C om p any ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55615 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01286-PSGFFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C ha y o B riggs a

nd Abra ham Ve ga M ore no a

ppe a l pro se from the distric t



# F IL ED APR 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ourt’ s judgm e nts in the ir a c tion a lle ging viola t ions of sta

te and fe de ra l la

w in c onne c tion with a

non-judic ia l fore c losure . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to c om

ply with its loc a l rule s. Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing plaintiffs’ c la im s a ga inst de fe nda

nts De utsc he B ank Na

tiona l Trust C o., JP M orga n C ha se B ank, N.A., M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra tion Sy ste m s, Inc ., a

n d W M C M o rtga ge C orporation be c a

use pla intiffs fa ile d to opposethe se de fe nda nts’ m otions to dism iss. Se e C .D. C a l. R . 7-9 (re quiring the filing of a n opposition or sta

te m e nt of non-opposition to a m otion to dism iss); C . D. C a l. R . 7-12 (providing tha t the fa ilure to file any

re quire d doc um e nt m a

y be de e m e d c onse nt to thegranting or de nia l of the m otion); G hazali , 46 F.3d a t 53-54 (se tting forth fa c tors to be c onside re d be fore dism issing a n a c t ion for fa ilure to follow the loc a l rule s , a ffirm ing dismi ssa l for fa ilure to file opposition to m otion to dism

iss, a nd noting that pro se litiga

nts a re bound by

the rule s of proc e dure ). W e re je c t de fe nda

n t W M C M ortga g e C orporation’ s argum e nt tha t this c ourt la c ks a ppe l late jurisdic t i on ove r pla i ntiffs’ a ppe a l . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(b)(2) (“ A notic e of a

ppe a l file d a fte r the c ourt a nnounc e s a

de c i sion, se nte nc e , or orde r–but
1 3 - 5 5 6 1 5 2be fore the e ntry of the judgm e nt or orde r–is tre a te d a s file d on the date of a

n d a fte r the e ntry . ” ) De fe nda nts De utsc h e B ank Na

tiona l Trust C o., JP M o rgan C ha se B ank, N.A., a nd M ortga g e Ele c tronic R e gistra tion Sy ste m s, Inc .’ s M otion to Ta ke Judic ia l Notic e , file d

on De c e m

be r 17, 2013, is gra

nte d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 6 1 5 3