RONALD WILLIAMS V. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CO, No. 17-15152 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD WILLIAMS; JANN GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15152 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01860-GMN-NJK Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ronald Williams and Jann Gwendolyn Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants made false representations concerning the title of the property at issue or that plaintiffs own or hold a beneficial interest in the property. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.395(1), (5) (2015) (defining false representations concerning title and setting forth requirements for bringing a civil action). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave plaintiffs notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a vexatious litigant). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 17-15152 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). Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 17-15152

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.