Michael B. Sparlin; Sharon J. Sparlin v. Bac Home Loans Servicing Lp, originally named as Bank of America Home Loans;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. SPARLIN; SHARON J.
SPARLIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP,
originally named as Bank of America
Home Loans; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15901
D.C. Nos. 4:10-cv-00503-FRZ
4:10-cv-00507-FRZ
4:10-cv-00508-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. and Sharon J. Sparlin appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their three consolidated actions arising out of foreclosure
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Sparlins’ actions because, despite
detailed instructions from the court on how to cure the defects in their original
complaints, the Sparlins failed to allege any specific facts in their amended
complaint showing that they were entitled to relief on any of their seven federal
and state law claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”); see also Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d
1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Arizona law recognizes a successor trustee’s
authority to initiate and conduct a foreclosure sale after the borrowers’ default,
without any requirement that the beneficiary demonstrate possession of the note
underlying the deed of trust.”).
The Sparlins’ contentions regarding the denial of discovery, their requests
for admissions, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction are unpersuasive.
We do not consider the Sparlins’ arguments, raised for the first time in their
reply brief, regarding defendants alleged failure to provide a credible witness. See
11-15901 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
11-15901 3

-- 3 of 3 --