NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENISE WALLACE, No. 20-17498
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:18-cv-02768-JAM-DB
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
DENISE WALLACE, No. 21-15026
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cv-02768-JAM-DB
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, FKA
Centex Home Equity Co. LLC, DBA Mr.
Cooper; BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, FKA The Bank of New York, as
successor in interest to JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Centex Home
Equity Loan Trust 2006-A,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
CENTEX HOME EQUITY, LLC;
MORTGAGE LAW FIRM,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2021
Submission Withdrawn October 6, 2021
Resubmitted December 8, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Denise Wallace appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper and Bank of New York Mellon
(“Nationstar”) on her breach of contract claim, and Nationstar cross-appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wallace on its fraud and
unjust enrichment counterclaims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we review summary judgment rulings de novo. Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc., 911
F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
1. Nationstar is entitled to summary judgment on Wallace’s breach of
contract claim based on the 2010 loan modification agreement. There was no
meeting of the minds between the parties with respect to the principal balance of the
loan or the duration of the fixed interest rate. See Terry v. Conlan, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d
603, 613 (Cal. App. 2005) (noting that no enforceable contract exists where there is
no meeting of the minds on material terms). Wallace fails to point to evidence in
2
the record that Nationstar knew she had lowered the principal balance by $200,000
and modified the terms of the agreement Nationstar had sent her, much less that it
consented to these changes. Without agreement on these material terms, there was
no valid contract modification between the parties and therefore no breach.
2. Wallace is entitled to summary judgment on Nationstar’s fraud and
unjust enrichment counterclaims. Although she did not redline the changes she
made to her version of the loan modification, she did label it “revised” and advise
that Nationstar should “note any changes.” The district court correctly concluded
that this evidence prevents a finding that there was a misrepresentation for purposes
of fraud, see Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268, 274 (Cal. 2004),
or injustice for purposes of unjust enrichment, see Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
741 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014), abrogated on other grounds by Microsoft Corp.
v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017).
AFFIRMED.
3