HORACIO RAZ V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 14-56290 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HORACIO C. RAZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-56290 D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00202-JLS-DFM MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Its Assignees and/or Successors, Defendant, and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Plaintiffs Horacio C. Raz, Juliana G. Raz, and Rochelle G. Raz appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The Razes have failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing any of their claims. Rather, the Razes raise new claims against defendants and allege errors in their bankruptcy and state court unlawful detainer actions. As a result, the Razes have waived their appeal of the district court’s dismissal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”); see also Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal). The Razes’ pending motion, filed on March 9, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-56290

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.