GILBERT MARTINEZ V. WELLS FARGO BANK, No. 14-56569 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GILBERT E. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-56569 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00802-CAB-BGS MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC, Green Point Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR1; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Gilbert E. Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from foreclosure * 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). proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim 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. The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion to vacate the judgment because Martinez failed to establish grounds warranting relief. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements to vacate judgment); United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion requirements). We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contentions that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss due to its bias and denial of Martinez’s due process rights. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994) (recognizing that adverse judicial rulings almost never constitute a basis for finding judicial bias). 2 14-56569 We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 14-56569

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.