NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT VALENTE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA; KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16604
D.C. No. 3:20

- cv - 01172

- MMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY , TASHIMA , and MILLER , Circuit Judges

. Robert Valente appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging state law claims related to the purchase of a property and subsequent foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 16604

Ellis v. City of San Diego , 176 F.3d 11 83, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999)

. We affirm.
T he district court properly dismissed Valente’s action as time

- barred
because Valente failed to file his action within the statute s of limitations

. See Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two

- year statute of limitations for claim for injury to an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another ) ; id. § 337(a) , (c) (four

year statute of limitations for claim based on any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrumen t in writing, or based on the rescission of a contract in writing ) ; id. § 338(d) (three

- year statute of limitations for fraud claim ) ; id. § 339(1) (two

- year statute of limitations for professional negligence claim) ; Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc. , 292 P.3 d 871 , 879

- 80 (Cal. 2013) (setting forth continuing

- wrong accrual principles) ; see also Deutsch v. Turner Corp. , 324 F.3d 692, 716

- 17 (9th Cir. 2003) (under California’s governmental

- interest approach to choice

- of

- law rules, a California district court generally applies California’s statute of limitations)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Valente leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034 , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Valente’s motion to3 20

- 16604

alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because
Valente failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Di st. No. 1J,
Multnomah County

, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Valente’s motion for leave to file an untimely reply brief is granted

. The
Clerk will file the reply brief received on March 22, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 2 0 ).
AFFIRMED.