Anthony Zandonatti v. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, Original Lender;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY ZANDONATTI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, Original
Lender; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15796
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00184-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Zandonatti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing without leave to amend his diversity action relating to foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
* 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 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-15796
the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011),
and we affirm.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Zandonatti’s action because
Zandonatti failed to raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district
court’s grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district
court’s ruling on the sufficiency of his allegations. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d
1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief
are deemed waived.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zandonatti’s “joint
motion to strike defendant’s motion to dismiss and for proof of authority to
represent”. See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.
2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “[d]iscretion is abused when
the judicial action is ‘arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable’ or ‘where no reasonable
[person] would take the view adopted by the trial court’”). Contrary to
Zandonatti’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on
defendants’ motion after giving Zandonatti notice under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315
F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), advising him that he was required to file a response to
defendants’ motion to dismiss, and providing him nearly one month to prepare a
response.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-15796
We reject as without merit Zandonatti’s contentions concerning defendants’
alleged procedural due process violations and the alleged prejudicial misconduct of
defendants’ attorneys.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --