THOMAS PARK V. MARK BOSCO, No. 17-15718 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS O. PARK; CHRISTINE L. PARK, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15718 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01279-SPL Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. MARK S. BOSCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Thomas O. Park and Christine L. Park appeal pro se from the district court’s 17 judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out 18 of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). The Parks’ requests for oral argument, set forth in their opening and reply briefs, are denied. 1 review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 2 claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. 3 The district court properly dismissed the Parks’ action because their claims 4 are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12- 5 543(3) (three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) 6 (one-year statute of limitations for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims); 7 Coronado Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, 678 P.2d 535, 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) 8 (“The statute of limitations in a fraud case [under Arizona law] begins to run when 9 the plaintiff by reasonable diligence could have learned of the fraud, whether or 10 not he actually learned of it.”). 11 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs further 12 leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g 13 Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review). 14 The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ 15 motions to dismiss without holding a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule 16 or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, 17 without oral hearings.”). 18 19 20 We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that defendants committed fraud upon the court. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 17-15718 1 in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3 4 31) is granted. AFFIRMED. 3 17-15718

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.