John R. Wilson, a married man; JACQUELINE M. WILSON, a married woman v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a Florida Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN R. WILSON, a married man;
JACQUELINE M. WILSON, a married
woman,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a
Florida Corporation and subsidiary of
JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware
corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-36011
D.C. Nos. 2:17-cv-00696-RAJ
2:17-cv-01389-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 29, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 30 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
John and Jacqueline Wilson appeal pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in the Wilson’s action arising
out of Chase’s conduct relating to a $567,000 loan the Wilsons received from
Chase’s predecessor-in-interest. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
We review a district court’s summary judgment de novo. United States v.
Washington, 928 F.3d 783, 790 (9th Cir. 2019). The district court did not err in
granting Chase’s motion for summary judgment on the Wilsons’ claims. Chase
submitted ample evidence to carry its initial burden to show an “absence of
evidence” supporting the Wilsons’ case. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986). This evidence included affidavits, relevant documentary evidence, and
admissions from the Wilsons resulting from their failure to respond to Chase’s
requests for admission. See Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Co., 17
F.4th 825, 837 (9th Cir. 2021) (failure to respond to request for admission results
in self-executing admission); see also Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978
(9th Cir. 2022) (pro se litigants held to procedural rules just as much as represented
litigants). In contrast, the Wilsons failed to submit any evidence in opposition to
Chase’s motion for summary judgment. Neither the Wilsons’ pleading nor their
arguments in their briefs are competent evidence to oppose summary judgment.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Barcamerica Int’l USA Tr.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 593 n.4 (9th Cir. 2002).
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of the
Wilsons’ post-judgment motions to amend briefing and for reconsideration and
further mediation. See Guenther v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 972 F.3d 1043, 1058
(9th Cir. 2022). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying these
motions. The Wilsons identified no grounds that would have compelled the district
court to reconsider its summary judgment or allow the Wilsons post-judgment to
amend their opposition to Chase’s motion for summary judgment. Nor did the
Wilsons show the district court abused its discretion by refusing to order further
mediation, given that two mediation sessions had already been conducted and
Chase’s other offers of compromise to the Wilsons were rejected.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --