TERRY KERR V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, No. 18-36026 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRY KERR; DENNIS KERR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-36026 D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00146-DCN v. MEMORANDUM* OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: Judges. THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Terry Kerr and Dennis Kerr appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Cervantes v. * 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). Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Kerrs’ action because the Kerrs failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-36026

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.