AL McZEAL; VIEN-PHUONG THI HO v. Gb Inland Properties Ii, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AL McZEAL; VIEN-PHUONG THI HO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GB INLAND PROPERTIES II, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56750
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05301-GAF-DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Al McZeal and Vien-Phuong Thi Ho appeal pro se from the district court’s
order denying their motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of
their action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with unlawful
detainer proceedings in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-56750
We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion
for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion
to strike defendants’ motions to dismiss because appellants failed to show how
they were prejudiced by defendants’ technical non-compliance with the local rules.
See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003)
(setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of
publicly recorded documents. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); United States v.
Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action
without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is
proper when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-56750
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --