Alphonso Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

Ninth Circuit

Alphonso Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

672 F. App'x 707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2016

Docket15-15430

StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 707 (Alphonso Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alphonso Mason v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 672 F. App'x 707 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*708 MEMORANDUM **

Alphonso Mason and Sonja Barnum Mason appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging violations of Nevada state law in relation to the Mason’s mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (statute of limitations); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1484 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996) (motion to remand). We affirm.

The district court properly denied the Masons’ motion to remand their action to state court because, contrary to the Masons’ contentions, the district court properly determined that diversity jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) & (c)(1), 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that under § 1348, a national bank is “located” only in the state designated as its main office).

The district court properly dismissed the Masons’ claims of predatory lending practices under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598D.100 and 598D.110, and their claims of fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, and unconscionability, because the Masons failed to file their action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), (3)(d), and (4)(b); USACM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, 754 F.3d 645, 648 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-year limitations period applies to fraud claims under Nevada law); Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n,6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Nevada law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims.”); Matter of Davis, 113 Nev. 1204, 946 P.2d 1033, 1040 n.10 (1997) (two-year limitations period applies to an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute prescribes a different limitation).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*708 MEMORANDUM **

Alphonso Mason and Sonja Barnum Mason appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging violations of Nevada state law in relation to the Mason’s mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (statute of limitations); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1484 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996) (motion to remand). We affirm.

The district court properly denied the Masons’ motion to remand their action to state court because, contrary to the Masons’ contentions, the district court properly determined that diversity jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) & (c)(1), 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that under § 1348, a national bank is “located” only in the state designated as its main office).

The district court properly dismissed the Masons’ claims of predatory lending practices under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598D.100 and 598D.110, and their claims of fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, and unconscionability, because the Masons failed to file their action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), (3)(d), and (4)(b); USACM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, 754 F.3d 645, 648 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-year limitations period applies to fraud claims under Nevada law); Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n,6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Nevada law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims.”); Matter of Davis, 113 Nev. 1204, 946 P.2d 1033, 1040 n.10 (1997) (two-year limitations period applies to an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute prescribes a different limitation).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 F. App'x 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alphonso-mason-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack