NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATISH SHETTY, No. 13-56700
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00820-AG-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to a mortgage loan on real
property allegedly transferred to him by the borrower after foreclosure. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
*
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 a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm
on an basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59
(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Shetty’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim was proper
because Shetty failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he has standing to
prosecute the claim on behalf of the third-party borrower. See Sprint Commc’ns
Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273-74, 89-90 (2008) (elements of Article
III standing; prudential standing requires that a party must assert its own legal
rights and may not assert the legal rights of another).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Shetty leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be
futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56700