Maria Ros v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Maria L. ROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee for DOWNEY 2004-AR2; Central Mortgage Company D/B/A Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company; U.S. Bank, National Association; Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Jay S. Bybee, Stephen S. Trott
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA L. ROS, No. 13-56300 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01929-BEN- WVG v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST MEMORANDUM* COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR DOWNEY 2004-AR2; CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY D/B/A CENTRAL MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING COMPANY; U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; DOES 1- 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 6, 2015** Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
* 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). Maria L. Ros appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her complaint without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ros contends that de novo review by this Court will reveal that amendment could save her complaint and that the district court’s denial of leave to amend was therefore improper. However, Ros does not contest any of the district court’s bases for its dismissal of her claim, nor does she set forth any facts or legal arguments which she would add to her complaint if amendment were permitted. In the absence of any argument by which this Court can reevaluate Ros’s complaint, we cannot say that leave to amend would not have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.