
    Wendle V. LEHNERD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16641
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Wendle V. Lehnerd, Pro Se
    Eric L. Cook, Attorney, Law Offices of Les Zieve, Phoenix, AZ, Sean Keenan McElenney, Esquire, Attorney, Eric M. Moores, Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wendle V. Lehnerd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the appeal.

Lehnerd failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property, and he therefore waived any defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-811(C) (defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 275 P.3d 598, 600 (2012) (en banc) (once a trustee’s sale is completed, “a person subject to § 33-811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or objections”). Because the foreclosure sale has been completed, we cannot grant Leh-nerd any effective relief and dismiss Leh-nerd’s appeal as moot. See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

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).

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