KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF, AKA Wanag Tahatan-Bey; TANYA STUTSON v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, Llp

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF, AKA Wanag
Tahatan-Bey; TANYA STUTSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER
& WEISS, LLP; UNREGISTER FOREIGN
BAR BRITISH AGENTS; COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA; DEBORAH COOPER;
CANDACE ANDERSON; DAVID O.
LIVINGSTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15926
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-06862-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Paul Woodruff and Tanya Stutson appeal pro se from the district
* 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
JUL 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15926
court’s judgment dismissing their action relating to the foreclosure of their home.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152,
1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts are not required to accept as
true allegations that “contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or
exhibit” or allegations that are “merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact,
or unreasonable inferences”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration because plaintiffs set forth no valid grounds for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59).
Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry No.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15926
12) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --