
    Michael J. PENCE; Tauni R. Pence, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16607
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 21, 2017
    Michael J. Pence, Pro Se
    Tauni R. Pence, Pro Se'
    Robert W. Norman, Jr., Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
    Mark D. Ghernoff, Chernoff Law Firm, PC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appel-lee Northwest Trustee Services Incorporated
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael J. Pence and Tauni R. Pence appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of the foreclosure sale of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

In their opening brief, plaintiffs fail to address how the district court erred by dismissing their action for failing to comply with the district court’s order to file an amended complaint. As a result, plaintiffs have waived their challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to comply with the district court’s order, we do not consider plaintiffs’ arguments addressing the underlying merits of the action.

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     