Richard I. Fine; Maryellen Olman-Fine v. GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD I. FINE; MARYELLEN
OLMAN-FINE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, an Oregon
Limited Liability Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55268
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06608-RGK-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Richard I. Fine and Maryellen Olman-Fine appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims relating
to 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).
FILED
FEB 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-55268
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Fines’
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See id. at 1041 (dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment
would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Fines’ motion
to set aside judgment because the Fines 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 relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)).
Judges Klausner and Otero did not err by failing to recuse themselves sua
sponte or abuse their discretion by denying the Fines’ motions for recusal because
the Fines failed to establish grounds for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (listing
circumstances requiring recusal); Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of
Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification of judge under
§ 455(a)); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868-69 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting
forth standard of review); see also Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d
710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate
judicial bias).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-55268
We reject as unsupported by the record the Fines’ contentions that the
district judges violated their due process rights.
We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court, or
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).
Appellees Gregory Funding, LLC, Selene Finance LP, and U.S. Bank
National Association’s request for costs, set forth in their answering brief, is
denied without prejudice to filing a bill of costs.
Appellees Gregory Funding, LLC, Selene Finance LP, and U.S. Bank
National Association’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --