
    June M. CANTRELL; Freddie Cantrell, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15936
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    June M. Cantrell, Pro Se
    Freddie Cantrell, Jr., Pro Se
    Jacob Bundick, Attorney, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

June M. Cantrell and Freddie Cantrell, Jr., appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging state law claims and violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal on the basis of the rule against claim-splitting. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled in part on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Cantrells’ action because the instant action is duplicative of the Cantrells’ earlier action against defendant in the same district court. See id. at 688-89 (explaining that an action is duplica-tive if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record the Cantrells’ contention that the district judge was biased.

Appellee’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 8) is granted.

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