Robert Palmer v. Etrade Mortgage Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT PALMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E*TRADE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-55679
D.C. No. 09-0856 JVS MLGx
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
In 2003, Robert Palmer entered into a contract to purchase a home in Laguna
Nigel, California. E*TRADE provided financing for the purchase. Several years
later, after discovering material defects in the home, Palmer filed suit against
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

E*TRADE, alleging that various statements made by E*TRADE’s representatives
incident to his purchase of the home were misrepresentations. At issue in this
appeal are Palmer’s claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Palmer
also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to file a third amended
complaint to add a claim for fraudulent concealment.
Under California law, the general rule is that a lender owes no duty to a
borrower with respect to an appraisal procured for its purposes as a lender. See
Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 283 Cal. Rptr. 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
The district court correctly found that the statements made by E*TRADE’s
representatives were either true or opinions that did not rise to the level of
actionable misrepresentations.
Palmer already had two opportunities to amend his complaint and cannot
show good cause to file a third amended complaint. Therefore, the district court
properly denied Palmer’s motion to file a third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --