Shade v. Bank of America Corp., 030811 FED9, 10-15383
|Party Name:||ROSS SHADE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; et at., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 08, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted February 15, 2011[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01069-LKK-JFM.
Ross Shade appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law claims arising from defendants initiation of state court proceedings to collect on a credit card debt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shade's fraud claim because he did not allege facts suggesting that an assignment of and attempts to collect on his overdue credit card debt constituted fraud. See Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 981, 984 (Cal. 1996) (listing elements of a fraud claim under California law).
Shade's contentions that he was denied due process and that the magistrate judge was biased are not supported by the record. See SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard); Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (a judge's legal decisions are insufficient to show bias).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Shade's third amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chaset v....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP