McKinney v. Bank of America, N.A., 022318 FED9, 17-55181

Docket Nº:17-55181
Party Name:TRACEE ELIZABETH McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; ELIZABETH COURTNEY FARRELL, Lead Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 13, 2018 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00442-JAH-KSC John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

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., 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 405 n.4 (Ct. App. 2013) (no legal authority to support the proposition that the absence of a notarization record renders an assignment void).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McKinney's second amended complaint because McKinney failed to include a demand for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3) (pleading must contain "a demand for the relief sought"); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth standard of review).

The district...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP