Lionel Lima, Jr. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 4, 2023
• Docket: 21-16924
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIONEL LIMA, Jr.; BARBARA-ANN No. 21-16924 DELIZO-LIMA, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1:12-cv-00509-SOM-WRP

v. MEMORANDUM* DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 2, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Lionel Lima, Jr., and Barbara-Ann Delizo-Lima appeal pro se from the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National

Trust Co. on their claims of wrongful foreclosure and unfair or deceptive acts or

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). practices (UDAP) in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 480-2. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant

of summary judgment, Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.

2011), and review for abuse of discretion its denial of a motion for post-judgment

relief, Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We

affirm.

The district court correctly granted summary judgment because the Limas

failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they suffered

harm—an element of their claims. See Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 241 F.3d

746, 751–52 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court did not err in granting

summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to offer evidence of damages, an

element of his tort claims). The district court correctly relied on the Hawaiʻi

Supreme Court’s answer, to a certified question under Hawaiʻi law, that a borrower

with no pre-foreclosure rights in property except as encumbered by a mortgage

bears the burden of accounting for the effect of the mortgage in establishing the

element of harm for his wrongful foreclosure and UDAP claims. See Lima v.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 494 P.3d 1190, 1193 (Haw. 2021). The Limas did

not provide evidence of damages that, when offset by their mortgage debt, would

establish the element of harm. See id. at 1202.

2 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Limas’ motions

for post-judgment relief because they failed to provide grounds for relief under

either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at

1262–63.

AFFIRMED.