Mildred Freeston v. Bishop, White & Marshall, P.S.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 27, 2010
• Docket: 10-35312
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILDRED C. FREESTON and SHIRSHA No. 10-35312 SUMERU, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05560-BHS Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM *

BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL, P.S.; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees,

PIERCE COUNTY; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Mildred C. Freeston and Shirsha Sumeru appeal pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court’s judgment dismissing their action under the Truth in Lending Act and state

law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v.

California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ state law claims because

they failed to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud or intentional

infliction of emotional distress. See Stiley v. Block, 925 P.2d 194, 204 (Wash.

1996) (listing elements necessary for actionable fraud); Birklid v. Boeing Co., 904

P.2d 278, 286 (Wash. 1995) (listing elements necessary for an intentional infliction

of emotional distress claim).

We do not consider contentions not raised in the opening brief, or regarding

issues not raised below. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellants’ motions to supplement the record are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-35312