Case Name: Jan SAMZELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successo by Merger LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2006-3AR; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-05
Citations: 667 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 13-15115
Parties: Jan SAMZELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successo by Merger LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2006-3AR; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Jan SAMZELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successo by Merger LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2006-3AR; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15115
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 05, 2016
Joseph Charles La Costa, Attorney, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esquire, Attorney, Michelle McGuinness, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jan Samzelius appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile. See id. (explaining that "a district court may dismiss without leave where . amendment would be futile").
We do not consider the district court's dismissal order because Samzelius failed to address the district court's dismissal of his claims in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[A]rguments 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.