Court Opinion

ID: 9410843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 19:00:57.309722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.621011
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF, AKA Wanag                  No. 22-15926
Tahatan-Bey; TANYA STUTSON,
                                                D.C. No. 4:21-cv-06862-SBA
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER
& WEISS, LLP; UNREGISTER FOREIGN
BAR BRITISH AGENTS; COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA; DEBORAH COOPER;
CANDACE ANDERSON; DAVID O.
LIVINGSTON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Kevin Paul Woodruff and Tanya Stutson appeal pro se from the district

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s judgment dismissing their action relating to the foreclosure of their home.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152,

1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sprewell v. Golden State

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts are not required to accept as

true allegations that “contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or

exhibit” or allegations that are “merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact,

or unreasonable inferences”).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion

for reconsideration because plaintiffs set forth no valid grounds for

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59).

      Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry No.

                                            2                                      22-15926
12) is denied as unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                3   22-15926