N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD SHUPE; M A R IA L. SHUPE,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A.,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15753 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-00019-JGZ-JR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, 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. R ic ha rd an d M aria

L. Shupe a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in the ir a c tion a lle ging c la im s a rising unde r the Te le phone C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t

(“ T C PA” ) an d

sta te la w. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
.



# 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 a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by Ninth C irc uit R

u le 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1291. W e re vie w de novo . T.W . Ele c . Se rv ., Inc
. , v . Pac . Ele c . C ontrac tors Ass’n , 809 F.2d 626, 629 (9th C ir. 1987). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on the Shupe s’ TC PA
c la im be c a use the Shupe s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r any

of B ank of Am e ric a ’ s c a lls to the ir re side ntia l te le phone line inc lude d the u se of a

n a rtific ia l or pre re c orde d voic e m e ssa ge . Se e 47 U.S.C . § 227(b)(1)(B ) (prohibiting only

the use of a

n a rtific ia l or pre re c orde d voic e in a c a l l to a
re side ntia l te le p h one line ); T.W . Ele c . Se r

v ., Inc
. , 809 F.2d a

t 630 (“ [T] he
nonm o ving pa

rty m ust se t forth, by

a ffidavit or a s othe rwise provide d in [Fe d. R
. C iv. P.] 56, spe c i

fic fac ts showing tha

t the re is a

ge nuine issue for tria l.” (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on the Shupe s’ inva sion of priva c y

c la im be c a

use the Shupe s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of
m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r B ank of Am e ric a ’ s c a lls we re a substa ntia l inte rfe re nc e that would be highly

offe nsive to a

re a sona ble pe rson. Se e Me d. Lab. Mgmt. C onsultants v. Am. Broad. C os. , 306 F.3d 806, 812 (9th C ir. 2002) (Unde r Ariz ona la w, the re is no lia

bility for the tort of intrusion upon se c lusion “ unle ss the inte rfe re nc e with the pla intiff’ s se c l usion is a substa n t ia l one , of a

kind tha t would be highly offe nsive to the ordina

ry m an, a s the re sult of c onduc t to whic h the

1 5
- 1 5 7 5 3 2re a s ona

ble m an would strongly

obje c t” ); se e also C

e lote x C orp. v . C atre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“ R ule 56(c ) m andate s the e ntry of s um m ary judgm e nt . . .
a ga inst a pa

rty who fa ils to m a ke a

showing suffic ie n t

to e sta blish the e xiste nc e of
an e l e m e nt e sse ntia l to tha t pa rty ’ s c a se , a

nd on whic h tha

t pa rty will be ar the burde n of proof at tria l.” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in striking the Shupe s’ joint
a ffidav it a s a

“ s ham a ffidavit” be c a

use it c o ntra dic te d R ic h ard Shupe ’ s prior de position te stim ony . Se e Ye age r v . Bow lin , 693 F.3d 1076, 1079, 1080 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t unde r the “ sha

m a ffidav it” rule , “ a

pa rty c an not c re a te an issue of fa c t by an a ffidavit c o ntra dic ting his prior deposition te stim ony ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the Shupe s’
m otion to c om

p e l d i sc ove ry

be c a use the d e nia l of the m otion did not re sult in a c tua l
and substa

ntia l pre judic e , a s the disc ove ry

the Shupe s sought would not pre c lude
sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie w for the de n ia l of m otion to c om pe l disc ove ry

and
e xpla ining tha

t the distric t c o urt’ s broa d disc re tion to de ny disc ove ry

will not be disturbe d e xc e p t for the c le a

re st showing tha

t de nia l re sulte d in a c tua l a n d substa ntia l pre j udic e to the c om

pla ining litiga

nt).

1 5
- 1 5 7 5 3 3W e do not c onside r m a te ria ls not pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt. Se e Unite d

State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C i r. 1990). W e do not c onside r m a tte 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 n ts ra ise d for the first tim e on a p pe a l. Se e Padge tt
v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 5 7 5 3 4