NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CINDY DUPRE, No. 14-56263
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01480-CAS-OP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MOUNTAIN WEST FINANCIAL, INC.; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Cindy Dupre appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim
because Dupre failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Jones
v. Wachovia Bank, 179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 28 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating elements of
promissory estoppel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental
jurisdiction over Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim after dismissing with
prejudice Dupre’s federal claims. See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d
1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 (granting district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to
those over which district courts have original jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dupre’s third
amended complaint without further leave to amend. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at
1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave
to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-56263