Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 2021
Docket20-15483
StatusUnpublished

This text of Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing 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
Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WANDA MARIE COHILL, No. 20-15483

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02479-JCM-EJY

v. MEMORANDUM* OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Wanda Marie Cohill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

* 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). claim. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cohill’s action because Cohill failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Nev. Rev. Stat.

§ 11.190(3)(d)-(e) (three-year statute of limitations for misrepresentation claims);

Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of

breach of contract claim under Nevada law); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859,

861-862 (Nev. 2014) (holding that, under Nevada law, homeowner lacked standing

to challenge an assignment of a deed of trust as a non-party to the pooling service

agreement); Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prod. Inc., 808 P.2d 919, 923

(Nev. 1991) (elements of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim

under Nevada law); see also 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)).

We reject as without merit Cohill’s contention that the district judge was

biased against her.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-15483

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Productions, Inc.
808 P.2d 919 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Victor Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc.
735 F.3d 892 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Nadia Naffe v. John Frey
789 F.3d 1030 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wanda Cohill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wanda-cohill-v-ocwen-loan-servicing-llc-ca9-2021.