Case Name: Amor Medina Del ROSARIO; Elvie Canlas Del Rosario, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee FOR the MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST, SERIES 2006-F1.; PNC Mortgage, Inc., FKA National City Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-01
Citations: 714 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 17-56466
Parties: Amor Medina Del ROSARIO; Elvie Canlas Del Rosario, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee FOR the MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST, SERIES 2006-F1.; PNC Mortgage, Inc., FKA National City Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Amor Medina Del ROSARIO; Elvie Canlas Del Rosario, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee FOR the MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST, SERIES 2006-F1.; PNC Mortgage, Inc., FKA National City Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56466
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed March 1, 2018
Amor Medina Del Rosario, Pro Se
EMe Canias Del Rosario, Pro Se
David M. Chute, Attorney, Wolfe & Wy-man LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Amor Medina Del Rosario and Elvie Canias Del Rosario appeal pro se from the district court's order denying their motion to vacate its judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging claims related to their mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to vacate because appellants failed to establish any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.