Giampa v. Midfirst Bank, 102618 FED9, 17-17438

Docket Nº:17-17438
Party Name:VICTORIA GIAMPA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDFIRST BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 26, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

VICTORIA GIAMPA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MIDFIRST BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-17438

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 26, 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 22, 2018 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01208-MMD-CWH

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Victoria Giampa appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Giampa's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), cancellation of assignment, lack of standing to foreclose, quiet title, slander of title, and civil conspiracy claims because Giampa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants lacked authority to foreclose or that the assignments were defective. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) (listing unfair or unconscionable conduct in the context of foreclosure proceedings); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.010; Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a RICO claim); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 861 (Nev. 2014) (per curiam) ("[T]he homeowner . . . lacks standing to challenge the validity of [a voidable] loan assignment."); McKnight Family, LLP v. Adept Mgmt. Servs. Inc., 310 P.3d 555, 559 (Nev. 2013) (elements of quiet title and slander of title claims under Nevada law); Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 260-61 (Nev. 2012) (explaining that Nevada law permits the severance and independent transfer of deeds of trusts and promissory notes without impairing the loan beneficiary's right to ultimately foreclose, and that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP