Jan Samzelius v. Bank of America, National Asso

Ninth Circuit

Jan Samzelius v. Bank of America, National Asso

667 F. App'x 974

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2016

Docket13-15115

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 974 (Jan Samzelius v. Bank of America, National Asso) 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

Jan Samzelius v. Bank of America, National Asso, 667 F. App'x 974 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jan Samzelius appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review for an *975 abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile. See id. (explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where ... amendment would be futile”).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal order because Samzelius failed to address the district court’s dismissal of his claims in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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