Yolanda Mulato v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOLANDA BUMATAY MULATO and No. 17-15011 ZOSIMA BUMATAY MULATO, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00884-NC Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a division of Wells Fargo Bank NA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 4, 2018** San Francisco, California

Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and DOMINGUEZ,*** District Judge.

* 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). *** The Honorable Daniel R. Dominguez, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation. Yolanda Mulato appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate a judgment

in favor of Wells Fargo. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we AFFIRM.

“[M]ootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment

under review.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29

(1994). Here, Mulato voluntarily settled her claims against Wells Fargo. The

record makes clear that the settlement was neither “happenstance” nor unrelated to

this litigation. Her argument that the underlying judgment in favor of Wells Fargo

should be vacated is therefore foreclosed by U.S. Bancorp.

AFFIRMED.