ANTHONY ZANDONATTI V. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, No. 14-15796 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 31 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY ZANDONATTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15796 D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00184-DCB MEMORANDUM* COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, Original Lender; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Anthony Zandonatti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without leave to amend his diversity action relating to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo * 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). the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Zandonatti’s action because Zandonatti failed to raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district court’s grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s ruling on the sufficiency of his allegations. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zandonatti’s “joint motion to strike defendant’s motion to dismiss and for proof of authority to represent”. See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “[d]iscretion is abused when the judicial action is ‘arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable’ or ‘where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court’”). Contrary to Zandonatti’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on defendants’ motion after giving Zandonatti notice under Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), advising him that he was required to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, and providing him nearly one month to prepare a response. 2 14-15796 We reject as without merit Zandonatti’s contentions concerning defendants’ alleged procedural due process violations and the alleged prejudicial misconduct of defendants’ attorneys. AFFIRMED. 3 14-15796
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
