Opinion
No. 17-15152
12-26-2017
RONALD WILLIAMS; JANN GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ronald Williams and Jann Gwendolyn Williams appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of plaintiffs' action was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants made false representations concerning the title of the property at issue or that plaintiffs own or hold a beneficial interest in the property. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.395(1), (5) (2015) (defining false representations concerning title and setting forth requirements for bringing a civil action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave plaintiffs notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a vexatious litigant).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.