Carmelita D. Viray and Rodolfo Viray v. Beneficial California, Inc., Mr. George Jones, Manager, Etc.
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Irma E. Gonzalez (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
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
129 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Carmelita D. VIRAY and Rodolfo Viray, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA, INC., Mr. George Jones, Manager, etc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-56767.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 4, 1997.** Filed Nov. 6, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CV-96-00035-IEG; Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HUG, Chief Judge, PREGERSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
1 MEMORANDUM* 2 We affirm the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Carmelita Viray's Amended Complaint alleging that while she sought to refinance her home in 1992, Beneficial and its employee George Jones acted improperly.
3 AFFIRMED.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3