N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH A. GUER

R A, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. JUST M OR TGAGE, INC . , e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 13-16725 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00029-KJD-NJK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ke nt J. Da

wson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Jose ph A. Gue rra

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his a c tion c ha lle nging de fe nda nts’ a c tions a

t the origina

tion a nd se rvic i ng of his m ortga ge loa

n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C

hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED N OV 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 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).The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gue rra ’ s c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nt JP M orga

n C ha se B ank, N.A. (“ C ha se ” ) unde r the R e a l Esta te Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure s Ac t (“ RE SPA” ) be c a

use Gue rra ’ s le tte r to C ha s e did not c onstitute a prope r qua lifie d writte n re que st. Se e12 U.S.C . § 2605(e )(1)(B ); Me d rano v . Flagstar Bank

, FSB , 704 F.3d 661, 667 (9th C ir. 2012) (only le tte rs c ha lle nging these rvic ing of theloa n c onstitute

qua lifie d writte n

re q u e sts). The distric t c o urt prope rly

grante d sum m ary judgm e nt on Gue rra ’ s RE SPA c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nt Just M ortga ge , Inc . be c a use 12 U.S.C . § 2603(a) doe s not c re ate a priva te right of a c tion, a

nd a ny c la im unde r 12 U.S.C . § 2607 wa s ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 2614 (a c tions under § 2607 a re subje c t to a one y e a r statute of lim i tations); Martine z v . W e lls Fargo Home

Mortg., Inc . , 598 F.3d 549, 557 (9th C ir. 2010) (the re is no priva te right of a c tion unde r 12 U.S.C . § 2603(a )). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gue rra ’ s Truth in Le nding Ac t (“ TILA” ) dam a ge s c la im a ga inst Just M ortga g e be c a use this c la im wa s ba rre d by the sta t ute of lim ita

tions, a nd Gue rra

fa ile d to de m onstra

te that e quita ble tolling a

pplie s . Se e 15 U.S.C . § 1640(e ) (TILA dam a ge s c l a im s a re subje c t to a

one y e ar statute of lim ita tions). To the

e xte nt tha

t Gue rra a sse rte d a c la im for re sc ission, the

distric t c ourt prope rly

grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on this

1 3 - 1 6 7 2 5 2c la im

be c a use Just M o rtga ge introduc e d e vide nc e showing tha t the re is no ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to its c om plia nc e with TILA’ s disc losure re quire m e nts. To the e xte nt tha

t Gue rra a l le ge d a n inde p e nde nt c la im

unde r Artic le 9 of the Ne va da Uniform C om m e rc i a l C ode (“Ne v a da

UC C ” ), the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on this c la im

be c a use Gue rra

fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe n da nts viola t e d Artic le 9. Se e N.R .S. § 104.9109(4)(k); C

affasso, U.S. e

x re l. v . Ge n. Dy namic

s C 4 Sy s., Inc . , 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ To survivesum m ary judgm e nt, a

pla intiff m

ust se t forth non-spe c ulat ive e vide nc e of spe c ific fa c ts, not swe e ping c onc lusory a lle gations.” ). To the e xte nt tha

t Gue rra a l le ge d a n inde p e nde nt c la im

unde r Artic le 3 of the Ne va da UC C , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on this c la im be c a use Gue rra

fa ile d to ra ise a

ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he de m ande d a

ny de fe nda

nt to “ e xhibit the instrum e nt” unde r Artic le 3 of the Ne va da UC C , or whe t

he r C h a se wa s the prope r party to e nforc e the note . S

e e N.R . S. § 104.3501; C

affasso , 637 F.3d a

t 1061. Gue rra ’ s c onte ntions tha

t de fe nda nts la c ke d “ sta

nding” to bring the i r m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, tha

t the distric t c ourt la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion to de c ide the m otion, or tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by de c iding them otion without a 1 3 - 1 6 7 2 5 3he aring a

re unpe rsua s ive . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 78(b) (“ 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.” ). The distric t c o urt did not a b use its disc re tion in deny ing Gue rra ’ s Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b) m otion se e king re l ie f from the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a use Gue rra

did not de m onstra

t e any grounds wa

rranting suc h re l ie f. Se eSc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

t y ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd grounds for re lie f). 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 ePadge tt v . W

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

1 3 - 1 6 7 2 5 4