
    John B. RAMIREZ, aka Johnny Rhondo, Plaintiff-Appellant, Juanda K. Anderson; Pro Business Coach, Inc., Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-56604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 19, 2015.
    John B. Ramirez, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Juanda K. Anderson, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Pro Business Coach, Inc., Orange, CA, pro se.
    Sandra R. Brown, Assistant U.S., Gavin Greene, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Gretehen M. Wolfinger, U.S.' Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel, unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John B. Ramirez, aka Johnny Rhondo, and Juanda K Anderson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their amended petition to quash Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses issued to third-party financial institutions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants failed' to mail their petition to the summoned financial institutions. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(B) (any person who brings a proceeding to quash a summons “shall mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the petition to the person summoned”); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7609-4(b)(8) (“If a person entitled to notice of the summons fails to give proper and timely notice to either the summoned person or the IRS ..., that person has failed to institute a proceeding to quash and the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.”); Mollison v. United States, 568 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9th Cir.2009) (§ 7609(b)(2) is the government’s consent to waive sovereign immunity, and the government’s conditions on consent must be strictly observed; courts lack jurisdiction unless claims meet terms of waiver).

We reject Appellants’ contentions that they were improperly served with the summonses, and that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Appellants’ motion to consolidate, set forth .in their opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     