Reader v. Bank of America, N.A., 070714 FED9, 12-15205
|Party Name:||HELEN E. READER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, a Texas limited partnership, successor in interest to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 07, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 25, 2014 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02461-FJM
Helen E. Reader appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly denied Reader's motion to remand because the district court had diversity jurisdiction and defendants timely removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity jurisdiction); Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and holding that each defendant is entitled to thirty days to exercise his removal rights after being served).
The district court properly dismissed Reader's claims for wrongful foreclosure and tortious interference with enjoyment of property, and her request for a declaratory judgment, because her allegations did not "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); see also Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1043-44 (explaining that "Arizona state courts have not yet recognized a wrongful foreclosure cause of action, " and in states that do recognize such claims, they typically are available only after foreclosure and are premised on allegations that the borrower was not in default).
The district court properly dismissed Reader's claim for "breach of the deed of trust contract" because documents referred to in the complaint showed that defendants complied with the provision requiring notice prior to acceleration. See Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2004) (elements of breach of contract under Arizona law); see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may consider documents not physically attached to the plaintiff's pleading whose contents are alleged in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP