713 Fed.Appx. 637 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55181, McKinney v. Bank of America, N.A.

Docket Nº:17-55181
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 637

713 Fed.Appx. 637 (9th Cir. 2018)

Tracee Elizabeth MCKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Elizabeth Courtney Farrell, Lead Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55181

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 23, 2018

Submitted February 13, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.

Page 638

MEMORANDUM[**]

Tracee Elizabeth McKinney appeals pro se from the district court’s 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 McKinney’s 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP