court’s decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir.2012). On this appeal, however, Rossetto takes no issue with any of the district court’s reasons for dismissal. . Instead, she argues for the first time that this court should recognize a Nevada right of action by analogy to an Arizona statute imposing liability on a person who records a false or forged lien or encumbrance against real property. Ariz. Rev Stat. § 33-420. She relies vaguely on In re MERS, 754 F.3d 772, 781-84 (9th Cir.2014), which reversed a judgment dismissing a claim in light of the Arizona Court of Appeals’ interpretation of § 33-420 in Stauffer v. U.S. Bank National Association, 233 Ariz. 22, 308 P.3d 1173, 1178 (Ariz.Ct.App.2013) (<HOLDING>). Although we have discretion to consider
holding that an action to clear title of a false or fraudulent document that asserts an interest in real property may be joined with an action for damages under  33420a holding that a claim for damages exists in an action to enforce title ix holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations