KEVIN WOODRUFF V. MASON MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL, No. 22-16476 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF, AKA Wanag No. 22-16476 Tahatan-Bey, as Grantor for Kevin Woodruff Estate Tanya Stutson Estate, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-03124-WHO Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. MASON MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.; US BANK, N.A., as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Guaranteed Remic Trust 2017-134 Trust; TEXAS CAPITAL BANK, NA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; SECRETARY OF VETRANS AFFAIRS AS U.S. OFFICERS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 18, 2023** * 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). Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Kevin Paul Woodruff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action relating to the foreclosure of his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Woodruff’s action because Woodruff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 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)); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts are not required to accept as true allegations that “contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or exhibit” or allegations that are “merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”). 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). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16476

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.