FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GALE-LAWRENCE WEBB, No. 11-16902
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02445-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITIMORTGAGE INCORPORATED,
named as: CitiMortgage Inc.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gale-Lawrence Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s Truth in Lending Act claim
seeking damages as time-barred because the action was not filed within one year of
the alleged violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages must be
brought within one year of the alleged violation).
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s state law claims against the
Bosco defendants because Webb failed to allege facts showing that these
defendants breached any obligation under the deed of trust or Arizona law. See
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-807(E) (stating that a “trustee is entitled to be immediately
dismissed” from any action other than one “pertaining to a breach of the trustee’s
obligation”).
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s state law claims against
CitiMortgage Inc. based on the substitution of trustee. See Vasquez v. Saxon
Mortg., Inc., (In re Vasquez), 266 P.3d 1053, 1056-57 (Ariz. 2011) (concluding
that there is no requirement that the beneficiary under a deed of trust record that
deed prior to substituting a new trustee and beginning foreclosure proceedings).
Webb’s contentions concerning securitization, a federal land patent, and
defendants’ standing to pursue non-judicial foreclosure are unpersuasive.
The district court properly denied Webb’s motion to remand because the
2 11-16902
district court had federal question jurisdiction and Webb failed to raise any other
defects in the removal in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing
removal of a civil action alleging a claim arising under federal law); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack
of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the
notice of removal . . . .”); Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743,
747 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16902