Case Name: Dan V. READE; Jenet M. Foures, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.; Does, 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-29
Citations: 633 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 13-57022
Parties: Dan V. READE; Jenet M. Foures, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.; Does, 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Dan V. READE; Jenet M. Foures, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC.; Does, 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-57022.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 29, 2016.
Joseph Charles La Costa, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Nina Huerta, Esq., Locke Lord LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Stephanie A. Wraight, Esq., Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Dan V. Reade and Jenet M. Foures appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing without leave to amend their action alleging federal and state claims related to their mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision to dismiss without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining that "a district court may dismiss without leave where . amendment would be futile."); see also N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 906(b)(2) (following a merger, the property of the constituent entities "shall vest in such surviving or consolidated corporation without further act or deed").
We do not consider the district court's dismissal order because plaintiffs failed to address the district court's dismissal of their claims in their opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) ("[Ajrguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.