Richard Lee Graff v. Citimortgage, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LEE GRAFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55841
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03439-FMO-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Richard Lee Graff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a district court’s ruling regarding compliance with its local rules. See
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55841
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Graff’s motion for
leave to amend his second amended complaint because Graff failed to comply with
the local rules. See C.D. Cal. R. 15-1, C.D. Cal. R. 52-4; Bias, 508 F.3d at 1223
(explaining that we give “[b]road deference” to a district court’s application of its
local rules). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp.
v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard
of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would
be futile).
We do not consider matters 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --