Gerald ERWIN and Nancy Erwin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, 706 F. App'x 420

MEMORANDUM Homeowners Gerald and Nancy Erwin (“appellants”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal, on timeliness grounds, of their action alleging that Wells Fargo (“ap-pellee”) failed to participate in good faith in proceedings mandated by Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program (“FMP”) and

Section 107.086 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. We affirm. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014), and resolve issues of state law as we believe the state’s highest court would resolve them, HS Servs., Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 1997).

The district court correctly dismissed appellants’ action as untimely because it was filed several months after the parties received notice of the mediator’s decision, which is outside the thirty-day limitations period that applies to petitions for judicial review under Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Rules (“FMR”). See FMR 23(3) (providing that petitions for judicial review “shall be filed” within 30 days of the date the party to mediation receives notification of the mediator’s decision).

Further, the district court correctly construed appellants’ action as a petition for judicial review because their claims, however captioned, arose exclusively under

Section 107.086. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, . The FMRs have been revised and renumbered several times. The district court cited FMR 22(3) for the limitations period, quoting: "All such petitions shall be filed within 30 days of the date that the party to mediation received the notification of the issuance or non issu-anee of a certificate.” The parties do not address which version of the FMRs applies, but neither suggests that any amendment to the rules bears upon the issues presented.