N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STERL ING J. M OR TENSEN; M AUREEN M OR TENSEN,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. C OUNTR

YW IDE B ANK, FSB ; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 13-35286 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00298-EJLLM B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Edwa rd J. Lodge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Ste rling J. M orte nse n a

nd M a ure e n M orte n se n a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing the ir a c t ion a lle ging fe de ra l an d sta te la w c la im s re late d to the fore c losure of the ir prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED OCT 05 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6). C

e r v ante s v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the M orte nse ns’ c la im for dam a ge s unde r the Truth in Le nding Ac t (“ TILA” ) be c a

use it is ba

rre d by the sta tute of lim ita tions a nd the M orte nse ns fa ile d to ple a d fa c ts de m onstra ting tha t e quita ble tolling should a

pply . Se e 1 5 U.S.C . § 1640(e ) (an a c tion for da m a g e s unde r TILA m ust be brought within one y e ar of the a lle ge d viola

tion). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M orte nse ns’ c la im for re sc ission under TILA be c a

use the M orte nse ns ha

ve not a lle g e d tha

t the y inte nd to or a

re a ble to te nde r the am ount loa

ne d. Se eHe bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (a lthough pro se ple a dings a re libe ra lly

c onstrue d, a

pla i ntiff m

ust still pre s e nt fa c tua l a lle gations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla usible c la im

for re lie f); se ealso Yamamoto v . Bank

of N .Y. , 329 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th C ir. 2003) (sta ting tha t re c i ssion should be

c onditione d on re pa

ym e nt of the am ounts a dva nc e d by the le nde r). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the M orte nse ns’ R e a l Esta te Se ttle m e nt Proc e d ure s Ac t c la im

be c a use the M orte nse ns did not alle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the ir inquirie s re quire d a re sponse unde r the Ac t . Se e 12 U.S.C . 1 3 - 3 5 2 8 6 2§ 2605(e ) (ide nt ify ing se rvic e re late d inquire s tha t re quire a loa

n se rvic e r to re spond). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the M orte nse ns’ c la im s pre dic ate d on the a lle ge d im

prope r use of M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e g i stration Sy ste m s, Inc . (“ M ER S” ) on the de e d of trust be c a use those c la im s a

re fore c lose d by

sta te la w. Se e Edw a rds v . Mortg. Ele c . Re gistration Sy

s., Inc . , 300 P.3d 43, 49 (Ida ho 2013) (“ [H] aving M ER S the nam e d be ne fic ia ry a s nom ine e for the le nde r c onform s to the re quire m e nts of a de e d of trust under Idaho la w.” ); se ealso Diaz v. K

uble r C orp. , 785 F.3d 1326, 1329 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ Whe n inte rpre ting sta te la w, we are bound to follow the

de c isions of the

sta te ’ s highe s t c ourt . . .” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the M orte nse ns’ c la im for bre a c h of fiduc ia ry dutie s a g a inst C o untry

wide B ank, FSB be c a

use m ortga ge le nde rs ge ne ra lly do not oweborrowe rs a

fiduc ia ry duty , a nd the M orte nse ns fa i le d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the ir re lationship with C ountry wide B ank, FSB diffe re d from

tha t of a le nde r-borrowe r. Se eBlac k C any on Rac que tball C

lub, Inc . V. Idaho First N

at’l Bank , N .A. , 804 P.2d 900, 905 (Ida ho 1991) (“ [T] he re lationship in a

le nde r-borrowe r situa

tion is a de b tor-c re ditor re lat ionship, a nd not a fiduc ia ry re lationship.” ) 1 3 - 3 5 2 8 6 3To the e xte nt the M orte nse ns’ c la im s a re pre dic at e d on “ robo-signing” a lle gations, thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d

those c la im s be c a

u se the M orte nse ns fa i le d to a lle ge suffic ie nt fa c t s to sta te a pla usible c la i m

for re lie f. Se e He bbe , 627 F.3d a

t 341-42. W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or m atte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in theope n ing brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). The M orte nse ns’ m otion to a ugm e nt the re c ord file d on August 12, 2013 is grante d. The M orte nse ns’ m otion to ta ke judic ia l notic e file d Se p t e m be r 5, 2013 is de nie d a s unne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 2 8 6 4