The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-56290•Horacio C. Raz; v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Its Assignees and/or Successors
14-56290Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 3, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HORACIO C. RAZ; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Its Assignees
and/or Successors,
Defendant,
and
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56290
D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00202-JLS-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
FEB 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 14-56290
Plaintiffs Horacio C. Raz, Juliana G. Raz, and Rochelle G. Raz appeal pro se
from the district court’s order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law
claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
The Razes have failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in
dismissing any of their claims. Rather, the Razes raise new claims against
defendants and allege errors in their bankruptcy and state court unlawful detainer
actions. As a result, the Razes have waived their appeal of the district court’s
dismissal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal,
arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”);
see also Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not
consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal).
The Razes’ pending motion, filed on March 9, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.