MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs, homeowners whose home loans have fallen into default, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) without leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Plaintiffs challenge the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (“MDL Court”) and the MDL Court’s order interpreting the JPML’s order. We lack jurisdiction to review the JPML’s order because Plaintiffs have not sought a writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e); Robinson v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.), No. 11-17615, 754 F.3d 772, 778, 2014 WL 2611314, at *5 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs waived their challenge to the MDL Court’s order by not “specifically and distinctly” arguing it in their opening brief. Kim v. Kang, 154 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 1998).

On remand from the MDL Court, Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud in the inducement fail because the SAC does not plead fraud with particularity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The SAC does not identify the agent or agents who made the alleged misrepresentations, what type of employee the alleged agents were, or whether the alleged misrepresentations were made by one or multiple agents. They do not identify the date, location, manner, or frequency of any alleged misrepresentation. They therefore fall short of the particularity required by Rule 9(b). See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment fail because, under Nevada law, unjust enrichment is not available when the parties had an express written contract. Leasepartners Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust Dated Nov. 12, 1975, 113 Nev. 747, 942 P.2d 182, 187 (1997). Even if unjust enrichment is available when a contract is procured by fraud, Plaintiffs did not adequately plead fraud under Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs’ other arguments on unjust enrichment were not raised in their opening brief and are waived. See Kim, 154 F.3d at 1000.

Because Plaintiffs’ substantive claims fail, the district court properly dismissed their requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs do not appeal the dismissal of their unlawful detainer claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because Plaintiffs twice amended their complaint and were still unable to state a claim for relief. See Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.