Tracy Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank

Ninth Circuit

Tracy Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank

576 F. App'x 696

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2014

Docket12-15833

StatusUnpublished

This text of 576 F. App'x 696 (Tracy Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank) 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

Tracy Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank, 576 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Tracy D. Lawson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to amend. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129 (9th Cir.2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Denial of Lawson’s motion for leave to amend her complaint was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile. See Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1130; see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819, 824 (2011) (California law does not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized” (citation omitted)).

Lawson’s contention that the district court held her to the standards of a practicing attorney is not supported by the record.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tracy D. Lawson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to amend. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129 (9th Cir.2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Denial of Lawson’s motion for leave to amend her complaint was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile. See Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1130; see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819, 824 (2011) (California law does not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized” (citation omitted)).

Lawson’s contention that the district court held her to the standards of a practicing attorney is not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 F. App'x 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracy-lawson-v-citicorp-trust-bank-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack