N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PHILIP FR

ANK KENNEDY; DANA LYNN KENNEDY, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. LEHM AN B R OTHER S B ANK, FSB ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-56557 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01516-JLSM DD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2013 * * B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, TASHIM A, a n d WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. Philip Fra nk Ke nne d

y and Da na Ly nn Ke nne dy

a ppe a l pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing the i r a c t ion a rising out of fore c losure 

# FIL ED FEB 19 2013 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). Ac c o rdingly , pla intiffs’ re que s t for ora l argum e nt is de nie d.proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo,

K ing v . C alifornia , 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th C ir. 1986), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d pla intiffs’ c la im s for wrongful fore c losure an d

quie t titlebe c a

use de fe nda

nts ha d sta

tutory a uthority to initia te non-judic ia l fore c l osure proc e e dings. Se e C a l. C iv. C ode § 2924(a )(1); se e also Gome s v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc ., 121 C a l. R p tr. 3d 819, 823-24 (C t. App. 2011) (C a l. C iv. C ode § 2924(a )(1) doe s not a llow pla intiffs to bring a n a c t ion to de te rm i ne fore c losure a

uthority). M ore ove r, pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle ge that the y te nde re d or sa

tisfie d the ir pa

ym e nt obliga

tions under the de e d of trust. Se eArnolds Mgmt. C orp. v . Eisc he n , 205 C a l. R ptr. 15, 17 (C t. App. 1984) (“ [A] n a c tion to se t a side a truste e ’ s sa le for irre gula ritie s in sa le notic e or proc e d ure should be a c c om pa nie d by an offe r to pa

y the full a m ount of thede bt for whic h the prope rty wa s se c urity .” ); Aguilar v . Boc c i , 114 C a l. R ptr. 91, 92 (C t. App. 1974) (a m ortga ge e c annot quie t titlewithout sa tisfy ing his de

bt). C ontra

ry to pla intiffs’ c onte ntion, the ir offe r of pe rform an c e did not c onstitute a d e quate te nde r . Se e K arlse n v . Am. Sav . & Loan Ass’n , 92 C a l. R ptr. 851, 854 (C t. App. 1971) (“ [A] n offe r of pe rform anc e is of no e ffe c t if the pe rson m aking it is not a ble to pe rform . ” ).

1 1 - 5 6 5 5 7 2The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d pla intiffs’ c la im s for fra ud be c a use pla i ntiffs fa ile d

to m ake a lle gations with the spe c ific i ty re quire d by

Fe d . R . C iv. P. 9(b). Se e K

e arns v . Ford Motor C

o. , 567 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing without le ave to am e nd whe re am e ndm e nt would befutile . Se e Gordon v . C i ty of Oak land, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010). Pla intiffs’ c onte ntions tha t the fore c losure proc e e dings viola te d c onstitutiona

l a nd C a lifornia

C om m e rc i a l C o de provisions lac k m e rit. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 5 6 5 5 7 3