Case Name: David Barry TONEMAN and Kelly Kristene Toneman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NA, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2004-AC7 Asset Backed Certificates Series 2004-AC7; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-07
Citations: 628 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 13-56950
Parties: David Barry TONEMAN and Kelly Kristene Toneman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NA, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2004-AC7 Asset Backed Certificates Series 2004-AC7; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
David Barry TONEMAN and Kelly Kristene Toneman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NA, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2004-AC7 Asset Backed Certificates Series 2004-AC7; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-56950.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 5, 2016.
Filed Jan. 7, 2016.
Mark T. Young, Donahoe & Young LLP, Valencia, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Nicholas Gregory Hood, Esquire, T. Robert Finlay, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Jan T. Chilton, Adam A. Shajnfeld, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, John C. Gray, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
David and Kelly Toneman appeal from the judgment dismissing their Second Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Tonemans challenge the district court's dismissal of their claims for wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, negligence, fraud, and unfair business practices on various grounds. We affirm dismissal of these claims for the reasons stated in the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.