GARY PRYDE V. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., No. 15-17041 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY L. PRYDE; DENISE E. PRYDE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-17041 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00926-SRB v. MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Gary L. Pryde and Denise L. Pryde appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims against mortgage related entities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., * 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). 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Prydes’ quiet title claim because the Prydes failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that they were entitled to such relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274, 1282 (Ariz. 2014) (requiring mortgagors to pay off any unsatisfied balances in order to quiet title under Arizona law). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Prydes’ motion for leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). 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 15-17041

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.