NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALPHONSO MASON; SONJA BARNUM No. 15-15430
MASON,
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01709-JCM-NJK
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; LINEAR
FINANCIAL LP, DBA Pardee Home
Loans,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Alphonso Mason and Sonja Barnum Mason appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging violations of Nevada
*
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).
state law in relation to the Mason’s mortgage. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 2002)
(statute of limitations); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1484 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996)
(motion to remand). We affirm.
The district court properly denied the Masons’ motion to remand their action
to state court because, contrary to the Masons’ contentions, the district court
properly determined that diversity jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)
& (c)(1), 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014)
(holding that under § 1348, a national bank is “located” only in the state designated
as its main office).
The district court properly dismissed the Masons’ claims of predatory
lending practices under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598D.100 and 598D.110, and their
claims of fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, and unconscionability, because the
Masons failed to file their action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), (3)(d), and (4)(b); USACM Liquidating Trust v.
Deloitte & Touche, 754 F.3d 645, 648 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-year limitations
2 15-15430
period applies to fraud claims under Nevada law); Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms,
Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n.6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Nevada law provides a six-year
statute of limitations for breach of contract claims.”); Matter of Davis, 946 P.2d
1033, 1040 n.10 (Nev. 1997) (two-year limitations period applies to an action upon
a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute prescribes a different
limitation).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15430