NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARISELA DANGCIL GOMEZ, No. 19-56317

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00866-AG-DFM

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CALIBER HOME LOANS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Marisela Dangcil Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action arising from an alleged loan modification agreement. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for

failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson

* 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). v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gomez’s claims against defendant

Caliber Home Loans because Gomez failed to file suit within four years of the

claims’ alleged accrual. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (statute of limitations

for breach of written contract or for breach of its implied covenant is four years).

Because Gomez voluntarily dismissed this appeal as to defendant Chase, we

do not consider Gomez’s claim under the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights

because it was alleged only against Chase.

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.

2 19-56317