Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A.

Ninth Circuit

Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A.

696 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 2017

Docket15-56948

StatusUnpublished

This text of 696 F. App'x 256 (Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A.) 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

Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A., 696 F. App'x 256 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fontaine’s action because Fontaine failed to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading must do more than offer-labels and conclusions); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each wrong).

We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine’s contention that the district court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies in her complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fontaine’s action because Fontaine failed to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading must do more than offer-labels and conclusions); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each wrong).

We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine’s contention that the district court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies in her complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

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)

696 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julie-fontaine-v-bank-of-america-na-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack