Terry Kerr; Dennis Kerr v. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., Individually and as Trustee of SW Reo Trust 2014-1;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY KERR; DENNIS KERR,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., Individually and
as Trustee of SW Reo Trust 2014-1; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16304
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00012-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Terry and Dennis Kerr appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
* 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
JAN 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16304
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Kerrs’ action because the Kerrs
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See id. at 341-42
(although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action” will not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), “[n]or
does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions[s]’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.’” (citations omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kerrs’ motions
for entry of default judgment because the record does not show that defendants
were in default. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting
forth the standard of review).
The motion for leave to file an amicus brief (Docket Entry No. 18), filed by
U.S. Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee of SW REO Trust 2014-1, is
granted. The Clerk shall file the amicus brief at Docket Entry No. 18.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --