James Barrow; George Atacker v. NEWREZ LLC, DBA Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES BARROW; GEORGE A TACKER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEWREZ LLC, DBA Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing; MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PC, an
Arizona Corporation; DITECH FINANCIAL
LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company;
NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15626
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08064-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
James Barrow and George A. Tacker appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out
* 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
APR 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15626
of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because all of
plaintiffs’ claims rely on the untimeliness of defendant’s foreclosure proceedings,
but the record shows the foreclosure was timely under Arizona law. See Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 12-548 (a contract in writing that is executed in Arizona has a statute of
limitations of six years); In re Smith, 101 P.3d 637, 639 (Ariz. 2004) (“Under
Arizona law, enforcement is stayed and the time in which to enforce the judgment
is tolled during the pendency of bankruptcy actions.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --