Thomas McKinnon v. Ndex West, LLC

Ninth Circuit

Thomas McKinnon v. Ndex West, LLC

624 F. App'x 596

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2015

Docket12-17156

StatusUnpublished

This text of 624 F. App'x 596 (Thomas McKinnon v. Ndex West, LLC) 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

Thomas McKinnon v. Ndex West, LLC, 624 F. App'x 596 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Thomas and Geri McKinnon appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging conspiracy and fraud claims relating to the attempted foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on claim preclusion. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); D. Nev. L.R. 78-2 (“All motions may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered and decided with or without a hearing.”); see also Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th Cir.2015) (due process does not require a court to hold a hearing on a party’s motion to dismiss).

The McKinnons have waived their arguments as to the substance of the district *597 court’s dismissal order by raising them for the first time in their reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Thomas and Geri McKinnon appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging conspiracy and fraud claims relating to the attempted foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on claim preclusion. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); D. Nev. L.R. 78-2 (“All motions may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered and decided with or without a hearing.”); see also Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th Cir.2015) (due process does not require a court to hold a hearing on a party’s motion to dismiss).

The McKinnons have waived their arguments as to the substance of the district *597 court’s dismissal order by raising them for the first time in their reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 F. App'x 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-mckinnon-v-ndex-west-llc-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack