Martha Jo Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Ninth Circuit

Martha Jo Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

689 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2017

Docket14-55375

StatusUnpublished

This text of 689 F. App'x 561 (Martha Jo Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martha Jo Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 689 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Martha Jo Peters appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to' state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Peters’ action because Peters failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 820 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Ujnder Ninth Circuit precedent, incidental third-party beneficiaries may not enforce consent decrees,...”); see also Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *562 the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.Sd 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 18 and 21) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Martha Jo Peters appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to' state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Peters’ action because Peters failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 820 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Ujnder Ninth Circuit precedent, incidental third-party beneficiaries may not enforce consent decrees,...”); see also Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *562 the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.Sd 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 18 and 21) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-jo-peters-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack