
    Horacio C. RAZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Its Assignees and/or Successors, Defendant, and Quality Loan Service Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56290
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed FEBRUARY 3, 2017
    Horacio C. Raz, Pro Se
    Juliana G. Raz, Pro Se
    Rochelle G. Raz, Pro Se
    Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation
    Michael Thomas West, Esquire, Attorney, Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees EMC Mortgage Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Horacio C. Raz, Juliana G. Raz, and Rochelle G. Raz appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Razes have failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing any of their claims. Rather, the Razes raise new claims against defendants and allege errors in their bankruptcy and state court unlawful detainer actions. As a result, the Razes have waived their appeal of the district court’s dismissal. 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 will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”); see also Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal).

The Razes’ pending motion, filed on March'9,2015, is denied.

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