Michael S. Hoffman v. Aurora Bank, Fsb

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL S. HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AURORA BANK, FSB,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-55264
D.C. No. 5:12-cv-01015-JST-DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael S. Hoffman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging claims related to his mortgage. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s interpretation and application of its local rules. Delange v. Dutra
FILED
JAN 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Const. Co., Inc., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in discharging its order to show
cause in light of the fact that both parties did not appear at the scheduled motion to
dismiss hearing. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-14 (“Failure of any counsel to appear . . . may
be deemed consent to a ruling upon the motion adverse to that counsel’s
position.”). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting
defendant’s motion to dismiss without first holding a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining
motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15 (“The Court may
dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is
required by statute . . . .”).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Aurora Bank’s request to strike Exhibit F to Hoffman’s opening brief, set
forth in its answering brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
13-55264 2

-- 2 of 2 --