N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR AC ELI GONZALEZ; MA R IO E. GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A., suc c e ssor by m e rge r; e t a l., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16309 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02305-JAT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ara c e li a nd M ario E. Gonz a le z a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing the ir dive rsity a c tion a lle g ing sta

te la w fore c losure c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s 

# FIL ED MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C i r. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t prope rly

dism isse d pla i ntiffs’ a c tion be c a use pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta t e pla usible wrongful fore c losure and quie t titlec la im s. Se e id. at 341-42 (a lthough pro se ple a dings a

re libe ra lly

c onstrue d, a pla intiff m

ust still pre se nt fa c tua l a l le gations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla usible c la im for re lie f). To the e xte nt tha

t pla intiffs c ha l le nge the a bility of M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra tion Sy ste m s , Inc . (“ M E R S” ) to a ssign its inte re st in plaintiffs’ de e d

of trust, the se argum e nts fa il. S

e e Sitton v . De utsc heBank N at’l Trust C

o . , 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz . C t. App. 2013) (holding tha t M ER S, a s nom ine e and be n e fic ia ry of a de e d of trust, m ay a ssign thenote and de e d of trust). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing pla intiffs’ R ule 60(b) m otion for re c onside ra tion be c a use pla intiffs did not de

m onstra te any grounds wa

rranting suc h re lie f. Se e Am. Ironw ork s & Ere c tors, Inc . v . N

. Am. C onstruc tion C

o. , 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ B e c a use North Am e ric an and Fe de ra l sim

ply re argue d the ir c a se . . . the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng the m o tion [for re c onside ration] .” ). W e re je c t pla i ntiffs’ c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to hold a he aring be fore de c iding the i r m otion for re c o nside ration. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 78(b) 1 3 - 1 6 3 0 9 2(“ B y rule or orde r, the c ourt m ay provide for subm itting a

nd de te rm ining m otions on brie fs, without oral he arings.” ). W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d and a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 1 6 3 0 9 3