ARCHIE EDWARDS V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., No. 17-35535 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARCHIE T. EDWARDS; PATRICIA L. EDWARDS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35535 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01466-JCC Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Archie T. Edwards and Patricia L. Edwards appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1071* 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). 72 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act that caused plaintiffs’ injury. See Bavand v. OneWest Bank, 385 P.3d 233, 247-48 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (setting forth elements for challenges under the WCPA). The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim for “lack of standing to foreclose” because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. was not authorized to foreclose. See Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 41-42, 45 (Wash. 2012) (en banc) (discussing the definition of a “beneficiary” under Wash. Rev. Code. § 61.24.005(2) and that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. may act as a beneficiary’s agent); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters 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). 2 17-35535 AFFIRMED. 3 17-35535

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.