713 Fed.Appx. 637 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55181, McKinney v. Bank of America, N.A.
|Citation:||713 Fed.Appx. 637|
|Party Name:||Tracee Elizabeth MCKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Elizabeth Courtney Farrell, Lead Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Tracee Elizabeth McKinney, Pro Se Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 23, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted February 13, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00442-JAH-KSC
Tracee Elizabeth McKinney, Pro Se
Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tracee Elizabeth McKinney appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims related to her home mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McKinneys rescission claims because McKinney failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(a)(4) (loan modifications are exempt from Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements); Cal. Civ. Code § 1217 ("An unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof."); Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 405 n.4 (2013) (no legal authority to support the proposition that the absence of a notarization record renders an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP