Frank Deville; Dee Anetionette Deville v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Individually

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK DEVILLE; DEE ANETIONETTE
DEVILLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,
Individually and as Servicing agent for Towd
Point Mortgage trust 2020-1; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-56328
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-05576-JGB-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank Deville and Dee Anetionette Deville appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
* 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
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-56328
failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir.
2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because, despite being
granted an opportunity to amend, plaintiffs’ operative amended complaint failed to
comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”);
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint that is
“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” fails to
comply with Rule 8); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.
1981) (a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’
requests for judicial notice. See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132
(9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “documents on file in federal or state courts” are
properly the subject of judicial notice); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,
689 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile, as the district court correctly
concluded plaintiffs’ claims were barred by claim preclusion. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-56328
standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when
amendment would be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540
F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to
amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the
complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court erred
by denying their motion to consolidate and motion to alter the judgment.
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --