MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Thomas and Geri McKinnon appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging conspiracy and fraud claims relating to the attempted foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on claim preclusion. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); D. Nev. L.R. 78-2 (“All motions may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered and decided with or without a hearing.”); see also Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (due process does not require a court to hold a hearing on a party’s motion to dismiss).

The McKinnons have waived their arguments as to the substance of the district *597 court’s dismissal order by raising them for the first time in their reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.