STEPHEN EDWARDS V. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, No. 19-15997 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 19-15997 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04040-SPL MEMORANDUM* PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Stephen S. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the foreclosure proceedings on his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure * 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). 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action because Edwards failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (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). PHH Mortgage Corporation’s request for fees and costs on appeal set forth in its answering brief is denied without prejudice to the filing of a timely bill of costs and motion for attorney’s fees under Fed. R. App. P. 39 and 9th Cir. R. 39-1. AFFIRMED. 2 19-15997

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.