NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY, FKA Satish No. 17-55982
Shetty,
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08986-MWF-JPR
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
*
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).
12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shetty’s action because Shetty failed to
allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels
and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is
insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of
certain public records and bankruptcy court documents, and considering
documents referenced in Shetty’s complaint without converting defendant’s Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Lee v. City of
Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review
for decision to take judicial notice, and describing material that a district court may
consider when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion
to dismiss without first holding a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or
order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs,
without oral hearings.”); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15 (“The Court may dispense with oral
argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the
[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or these Local Rules.”).
2 17-55982
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment of the complaint would be futile. See United States ex rel. Lee
v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth
standard of review).
We reject as unsupported by the record Shetty’s contentions that the district
court exhibited bias and violated Shetty’s due process rights.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-55982