GLENN DAVIS, Sole and Separate Borrower v. MICHAEL TRAILOR, Chairman of the Arizona Home Foreclosure Prevention Funding…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENN DAVIS, Sole and Separate
Borrower,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL TRAILOR, Chairman of the
Arizona Home Foreclosure Prevention
Funding Corporation (AHFPFC); et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15798
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00458-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Glenn Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of defendants’ denial of
financial assistance to Davis under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”).
* 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).
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-15798
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c). Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s breach of contract claims
because Davis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was a third-party
beneficiary of the contracts between the Department of the Treasury and the
Arizona Home Foreclosure Prevention Funding Corporation (“AHFPFC”) in the
administration of the TARP in Arizona or that AHFPFC breached any contracts
with Davis. See Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d
1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Before a third party can recover under a contract, it
must show that the contract was made for its direct benefit—that it is an intended
beneficiary of the contract.”); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ariz.
Ct. App. 2004) (elements of a breach of contract claim under Arizona law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davis’s motion for
reconsideration because Davis failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We do not consider matters on appeal that are not distinctly raised and
argued in the opening brief. See Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-15798
Local Union No. 20, AFL-CIO v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.
1985).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --