MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Merly C.S. Riger, a homeowner whose home loans have fallen into default, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) without leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Plaintiff challenges the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (“MDL Court”) and the MDL Court’s order interpreting the JPML’s order. We lack jurisdiction to review the JPML’s order because Plaintiff has not sought a writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (e); see In re Wilson, 451 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.2006). Plaintiff waived her challenge to the MDL Court’s order by not “specifically and distinctly” arguing it in her opening brief. Kim v. Kang, 154 F.3d 996 , 1000 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment. Under Nevada law, unjust enrichment is not available when the parties had an express, written contract. Leasepartners Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust Dated Nov. 12, 1975, 113 Nev. 747 , 942 P.2d 182, 187 (1997). Assuming that unjust enrichment is available when a contract is procured by fraud, even if Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment is read as challenging the validity of her loan contracts based on Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff did not plead fraud with the requisite particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The FAC does not identify the specific content of any individual misrepresentation, where or when it was made, or which defendant made it. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment fails, the district court also properly dismissed Plaintiffs requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, reformation, and quiet title. Moreover, Plaintiff does not challenge this ruling on appeal.

Although a district court should grant leave to amend liberally, Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir.2002), here, the district court determined that Plaintiffs Proposed Second Amended Complaint sought to add claims similar to those transferred to the MDL Court by the JPML. The district court’s decision to deny Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend maintained the division of claims between the MDL Court and transferor courts as established by the JPML. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs motion. If Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint with respect to the claims pending before the MDL Court, her motion to amend should be made in that court.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.