RONALD WILLIAMS and JANN G. WILLIAMS v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD WILLIAMS and JANN G.
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16102
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00118-PMP-
PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ronald and Jann G. Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
FILED
OCT 7 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-16102 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline
Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Williams’ FDCPA claim because
the Williams failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants were “debt collectors.”
See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” as one who “regularly collects
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be
owed or due another”).
The district court properly dismissed the Williams’ fraudulent
misrepresentation claim because the Williams failed to allege with particularity
plausible allegations of fraud. See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics
C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of fraud must be
plead with particularity and plausibility).
The district court properly dismissed the Williams’ unjust enrichment claim
because the Williams failed to sufficiently allege the required elements, and
because the Williams’ allegations indicate that their claim is premised on express
written agreements. See Leasepartners Corp., Inc. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust, 942
P.2d 182, 187 (Nev. 1997) (setting forth elements of unjust enrichment under
Nevada law, and noting that “unjust enrichment is not available when there is an

-- 2 of 3 --

10-16102 3
express, written contract, because no agreement can be implied when there is an
express agreement”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Williams’
motion for reconsideration of its dismissal because the Williams failed to show
grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or.
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Williams’
motion to disqualify the district court judge because the Williams failed to
demonstrate that the judge had a personal bias or prejudice. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038,
1043 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review).
The Williams’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
The Williams’ request for judicial notice is construed as a citation of
supplemental authorities under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). The Williams’ motion to
strike is denied. JPMorgan Chase Bank’s requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --