Kang v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANJEET K. KANG; AMRIK SINGH No. 24-6287 KANG, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-05106-KKE Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Kymberly K. Evanson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Manjeet K. Kang and Amrik Singh Kang appeal pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in their diversity action alleging claims related to their

* 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). home loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Burch v. City of Chubbuck, 146 F.4th 822, 832 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Kangs

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants breached

an enforceable contract, mismanaged funds, or charged an unlawful amount for

insurance. See Wash. Rev. Code § 19.36.010 (“Every agreement that by its terms

is not to be performed in one year from the making thereof” must “be in writing,

and signed by the party to be charged therewith[.]”); Blue Mountain Const. Co. v.

Grant County Sch. Dist. No. 150-204, 306 P.2d 209, 212 (Wash. 1957) (“An

expression of assent that changes the terms of the offer in any material respect may

be operative as a counteroffer; but it is not an acceptance and consummates no

contract.”); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986) (holding

that when the moving party does not bear the burden of proof it may simply point

to “an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case”).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Cascadia

Wildlands v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 153 F.4th 869, 901 (9th Cir.

2025).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6287