BROWN v. WELLS FARGO BANK FSB FSB (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-28No. No. 20-15331

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint was affirmed because amendment would have been futile, as the California Homeowner Bill of Rights does not require lenders to provide loan modifications.

Suzanne Brown appealed the dismissal of her foreclosure-related lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, arguing among other things that the bank violated California's Homeowner Bill of Rights by failing to offer her a loan modification. The appellate court examined whether the trial court properly refused to allow Brown to add this claim to her amended complaint. Under California law, the Homeowner Bill of Rights requires lenders to consider borrowers for loss mitigation options and provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain them, but does not guarantee any particular outcome or mandate that loan modifications be offered. The court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the proposed amendment, since such a claim would have been futile under existing law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether denial of leave to amend a complaint constitutes an abuse of discretion
Whether the California Homeowner Bill of Rights creates an enforceable right to loan modification
Futility as grounds for denying amendment to pleadings

Procedural posture

A self-represented plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action and denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Suzanne Brown appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her diversity 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 leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend Browns first amended complaint to allege a California Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HOBR”) claim based on her proposed allegations that defendant was required to provide her with a loan modification. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.4 (explaining that “the purpose of [HOBR] ․ is to ensure that, as part of the nonjudicial foreclosure process, borrowers are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation options,” but that nothing in HOBR “require[s] a particular result of that process”); Mabry v. Superior Ct., 185 Cal.App.4th 208, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201, 211 (2010) (“Section 2923.6 merely expresses the hope that lenders will offer loan modifications on certain terms.” (emphasis is original)); see also Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).

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

Defendants request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.