Williams James v. Bank of America, N.A.

Ninth Circuit

Williams James v. Bank of America, N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2026

Docket24-3870

StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams James v. Bank of America, N.A. (Williams James 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

Williams James v. Bank of America, N.A., (9th Cir. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA K. WILLIAMS JAMES, No. 24-3870 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00312-JAO-RT Plaintiff - Appellant,

and MEMORANDUM* NATHAN EARL AIWOHI, TOBY ALAMOANA KEOHOKAPU, DARLENE K. EBOS, as successive Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara Anita Baliguat, SUSAN DeSHAW, THOMAS JOHNSON, LAZARA A. RODRIGUEZ, JULIE NICOLAS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill A. Otake, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted January 22, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Maria K. Williams James appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing a putative class action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. by Bank of America,

N.A., and The Bank of New York Mellon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

Because Williams James does not challenge the district court’s grounds for

dismissal of her action in her opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See

Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining that “we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1993) (explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s

opening brief are deemed abandoned).

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-3870

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