Jimit Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-55701 · 2013-03-06 · Unpublished

Jimit H. MEHTA, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, an Entity of Unknown Form; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Fletcher, Korman

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIMIT H. MEHTA, an individual, No. 11-55701 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00944-JLS- WVG v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, an entity of MEMORANDUM* unknown form; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Deferred January 11, 2013 Resubmitted January 18, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Appellant Mehta appeals the dismissal of his promissory estoppel and misrepresentation claims against Defendant Wells Fargo. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal for a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint must provide sufficient factual allegations to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plausibility requires facts that “allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

The district court properly held Mehta’s claimed reliance to be implausible.

Given the short time frame between the promise and the foreclosure date, it is not plausible that Mehta would have pursued the claimed avenues of relief. Thus, for the reasons set forth by the district court, we uphold the dismissal.

We deny the motions to strike and for judicial notice as moot.

AFFIRMED.