Virgilio Orcilla v. Bank of America, N.A.

MEMORANDUM

Virgilio and Teodora Orcilla appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Orcillas’ federal breach of contract claim because the Orcillas were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the Servicer Participation Agreement. See GECCMC, 2005-C1 Plummer St. Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 671 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2012) (“Parties that benefit from a government contract are generally assumed to be incidental beneficiaries, rather than intended beneficiaries, and so may not enforce the contract absent a clear intent to the contrary.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Klamath Water Users Protective Assoc’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.1999) (plain language of government contract was sufficient to show lack of intent to grant third-party beneficiary rights).

The district court properly dismissed the Orcillas’ procedural due process claim because the Orcillas did not…