MEMORANDUM **
Farrah Pirahanchi Nazemi appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings on her property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nazemis action because Nazemi could not bring an action challenging defendants’ right to foreclose before a foreclosure sale took place. See Perez v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 959 F.3d 334, 340 (9th Cir. 2020) (“California law does not permit preemptive actions to challenge a partys authority to pursue foreclosure before a foreclosure has taken place.”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 22) is granted.
Nazemis motions to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 19) and for an extension of time to file a reply brief and for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 36) are denied.
AFFIRMED.