Case Name: Enrique PEREZ; Bella Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-23
Citations: 672 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 16-15647
Parties: Enrique PEREZ; Bella Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Enrique PEREZ; Bella Perez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15647
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 23, 2016
Enrique Perez, Pro Se
Bella Perez, Pro Se
Diana N. Chinn, Litigation Counsel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Enrique Perez and Bella Perez appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 1962f because the district court dismissed these claims with leave to amend and plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims after dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver).
Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by failing to address how the district court erred in dismissing it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ").
We do not consider allegations and arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 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.