N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FAIZ SHOLIAY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. FEDER AL NATIONAL M O R TGAGE ASSOC IATION; U.S. B ANK N.A., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17310 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00958-WB S-DAD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s a nd SM ITH, *** C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED D EC 22 2015 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). *** The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa tion.Pla intiff Fa iz Sholia y a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r dism issing with pre j udic e his c om

p la int a ga inst De fe nda

nts, Fe de ra l Nationa l M ortga ge Assoc iat ion a

nd U.S. B ank, for fa ilure to sta te a c la i m . W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l de novo. W P P Lux e mbourg Gamma Thre e Sarl v . Spot Runne r, Inc . , 655 F.3d 1039, 1047 (9th C ir. 2011). On a ppe a l, Sholia

y c la im s thre e c a

use s of a c tion a ga inst De fe nda nts: wrongful fore c losure , fra ud a nd ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation, a

nd viola tion of C a lifornia ’ s B usine ss a nd Profe ssions C ode § 17200. The distric t c ourt a

n a ly z e d the wrongful fore c losure c la im a s a bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im , but Sholia y c annot suc c e e d unde r e ithe r fra m e work. Sholia y ha s not pointe d to a

ny e nforc e a ble c ontra c t be twe e n

him s e lf a nd De fe nda

nts. The le tte r in whic h Sholia

y c la im s U.S. B ank prom ise d to providehim with a loa n m odific ation if he qua lifie s unde r Hom e Afforda b le M ortga g e Program

(“ HAM P” ) guide l ine s doe s not a c tua l ly c onta in suc h a

prom ise . It only

sta te s tha t the ba nk will c onside r his a

pplic ation a

nd “ m ay ” offe r a tria l pa

ym e nt pla n if he is qua lifie d. Furthe r, Sholia

y doe s not ha

ve sta nding to sue

unde r HAM P itse l f. Se e K lamath W ate r Use rs Prote c tiv e Ass’n v . Patte rson , 204 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 1999). Nor ha s Sholia

y ple a de d the e le m e nts of wrongful fore c losure . He ha s not c onte ste d tha

t he wa s in de fa

u l t on a va lid m ortga ge he l d by the De fe nda

nts or 2argue d

tha t De fe nda nts fa ile d to c om

ply with theproc e dura l re quire m e nts for notic e or c onduc t of the sa le of his house . W e st v . J PMorgan C

haseBank

, N .A. , 214 C a l. App. 4th 780, 800 (2013). The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t Sholia y ’ s fra ud a nd ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation c l a im s we re ba se d sole ly on De fe nda

nts’ a lle ge d

fa ilure to pe rform the ir c ontra c t

u a l obliga tions a nd, a s a re sult, should be

e nforc e d through c ontra c t rathe r tha

n tort la w . Se e Aas v . Supe rior C

o urt , 24 C a l . 4th 627, 643 (2000), supe rse de d by

statute on othe r grounds . C onside ring thetort c l a im s on the m e rits, the y

fa il for the sa

m e re a son the c ontra c t c la i m s fa il: U.S. B ank did not re pre se nt to Sholia

y tha t it would provide

him with a

loa n m o dific ation, but inste a d only tha t it would c onside r his a

pplic ation. W

hile the ba

nk indic ate d

the possibility of postponing fore c l o sure proc e e dings, it wa s c le ar that it would do so only unde r c irc um s ta nc e s Sholia

y ha d not m e t. The se we re not fa lse re pre se ntations, so the fraud a nd ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation c l a im s fa il on thefirst step of the c la im ’ s ana ly sis. Se e W

e s t , 214 C a l. App. 4th a

t 792. Sholia

y ’ s a dditional a lle gation tha t a n e m ploy e e of U.S. B a

nk m isre pre se nte d to him tha t he would be pla c e d into HAM P is insuffic ie ntly

spe c ific and c annot survive a m otion to dism

iss. Se e Sw artz v . K PMG LLP , 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th C ir. 2007).

3The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t Sholia y ’ s c la im unde r C a l ifornia ’ s B usine ss and Profe ssions C ode § 17200 fa ile d for la c k of sta nding be c a

use Sholia

y fa ile d to a lle ge tha t De fe nda nts’ c onduc t wa s the c a

use of his injury , a s distinguishe d from his a dm itte d

de fa ult on theloa

n . In his ope ning brie f be fore this c o urt, Sholia y did not a dva n c e any le ga l argum e nt c ha lle nging this c onc lusion. “ Our c irc uit ha s re pe ate dly

a dm onishe d tha

t we c annot ‘ m anufa c ture argum e nts for a n a ppe lla nt’ and the re fore we will not c onside r any c la im s tha

t we re not a c tua lly

argue d in a ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f.” Inde

p. Tow e rs of W

ash. v . W ashington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C i r. 2003). As a

re sult, wetre at Sholia

y ’ s c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t he la c ke d sta

nding unde r § 17200 a s wa ive d . Sholia y m ake s no a

rgum e nt tha

t he should ha

v e be e n gra

nte d le ave to a

m e nd his c om pla i nt, though he

inc lude s “ whe t

he r . . . Appe l la

nt should ha

ve be e n gran te d le ave to a

m e nd” in the “ Issue Pre se nte d” se c tion of his opening brie f. That is not a n a rgum e nt. As a

re sult, heha s wa ive d this c ha lle nge . Se e Gre e n w ood v . F.A.A. , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ [A] ba re a sse rtion doe s not pre se rve a c la im .” ). AFFIRM E D.

4