Gunter Heidig; Janis Heidig v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Freddie Mac…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUNTER HEIDIG; JANIS HEIDIG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, as Trustee for Securitized
Trust Freddie Mac Multiclass Certificates,
Series 3038; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17377
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00576-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Gunter Heidig and Janis Heidig appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims relating to
their mortgage. 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
JUN 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-17377
a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Heidigs’ state law claims because
the Heidigs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 861 (Nev.
2014) (“[T]he homeowner, who is neither a party to the PSA nor an intended third-
party beneficiary, lacks standing to challenge the validity of the loan
assignment.”); Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 259-60, 262 (Nev.
2012) (en banc) (explaining that under Nevada law, Mortgage Electronic
Registration System, Inc. may properly act as beneficiary of a trust deed,
separating the instruments does not permanently bar foreclosure, and an entity has
authority to pursue foreclosure when it is entitled to enforce both the deed of trust
and the note).
We reject as without merit the Heidigs’ contentions that defendants
committed fraud on the court, and that defendants are precluded from foreclosing
due to a past mediation.
The Heidigs’ request for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, is
denied as unnecessary.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-17377
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --