Julie Elice Fontaine v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First Magnus…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIE ELICE FONTAINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First
Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First
Magnus Financial Corporation, a division of
Bank of America, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56948
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01944-WQH-
DHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims
arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56948
§ 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963,
968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); Cervantes v. United
States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fontaine’s action because Fontaine
failed to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2007) (pleading must do more than offer labels and conclusions); McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a
pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the
plaintiff for each wrong).
We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine’s contention that the district
court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies
in her complaint.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --