5 6 Thomas O. Park; Christine L. Park v. Mark S. Bosco;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
THOMAS O. PARK; CHRISTINE L.
PARK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARK S. BOSCO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15718
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01279-SPL
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the District of Arizona 9
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted October 22, 2018**
12
13
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 14
15
Thomas O. Park and Christine L. Park appeal pro se from the district court’s 16
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out 17
of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 18
* 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.
FILED
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-15718
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 1
claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. 2
The district court properly dismissed the Parks’ action because their claims 3
are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12- 4
543(3) (three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) 5
(one-year statute of limitations for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims); 6
Coronado Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, 678 P.2d 535, 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) 7
(“The statute of limitations in a fraud case [under Arizona law] begins to run when 8
the plaintiff by reasonable diligence could have learned of the fraud, whether or 9
not he actually learned of it.”). 10
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs further 11
leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g 12
Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review). 13
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ 14
motions to dismiss without holding a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule 15
or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, 16
without oral hearings.”). 17
We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that defendants committed 18
fraud upon the court. 19
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 20

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-15718
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 1
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 2
31) is granted. 3
AFFIRMED. 4

-- 3 of 3 --