NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUZANNE BROWN, No. 20-15331
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00260-MCE-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FKA
Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, FKA World
Savings Bank, FSB, successor by merger
with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Suzanne Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s 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
*
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).
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
Brown’s 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., 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201,
211 (Ct. App. 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).
Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15331