Fahed Sayegh, an individual v. JOHN ENRIGHT, INC., a California Corporation, DBA John Enright, Inc., Defined…

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FAHED SAYEGH, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN ENRIGHT, INC., a California
Corporation, DBA John Enright, Inc.,
Defined Benefit Pension Plan; FIRST
SECURITY MORTGAGE HOME
LOANS, INC., a California Corporation,
DBA First Security Mortgage;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE COMPANY, a California
Corporation; PAUL RIOS, an individual,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55030
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04794-JFW-JCG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, FISHER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court dismissed Fahed Sayegh’s claim for damages under the
Truth in Lending Act, finding the claim was barred by the statute of limitations,
and denied him leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile. Sayegh
argues that the court abused its discretion by denying him an opportunity to amend
his complaint to allege facts that would support tolling the statute of limitations.
We affirm.
Sayegh’s proffer to the district court of the kind of facts that he would allege
if he were given the opportunity to amend his complaint was insufficient to support
either equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. On appeal, Sayegh has not advanced
any facts that would plausibly support tolling the statute of limitations. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
leave to amend based on futility. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717-
18 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding denial of leave to amend on the basis of futility
where the plaintiffs proffered facts to the district court that were insufficient to
support tolling and failed to offer additional facts on appeal).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --