Absalon S. Velasco; v. Security National Mortgage Company, dba Security National Mortgage Company, Inc.;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABSALON S. VELASCO; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY, dba Security National
Mortgage Company, Inc.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17760
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00239-DAE-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Absalon, Say, and Garry Velasco appeal from the district court’s
dismissal of their second amended complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Plaintiffs’ new theory raised for the first time on appeal—that Defendants
violated Hawaii Revised Statutes section 667-5 (2008)—is barred by waiver.
O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007). In any
event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs leave to
amend a third time. See Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2000) ("[T]here was no error because no such claims were ever asserted and
there is no indication that plaintiff requested . . . leave to amend her complaint to
assert them."); Westlands Water Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal, 10 F.3d 667, 677 (9th
Cir. 1993) ("[A] district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to
amend where the movant has presented no new facts but only new theories and has
provided no satisfactory explanation for his failure to develop the new contentions
originally.").
Plaintiffs do not challenge the district court’s analysis of the merits of their
most recent claims. We therefore need not reach Plaintiffs’ challenge to the district
court’s alternative holding that they lack standing to challenge the assignment.
We have carefully considered each of Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments, and
none is persuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --