The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-15833•Tracy D. Lawson v. CITICORP TRUST BANK, A Member of Citigroup;
12-15833Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRACY D. LAWSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITICORP TRUST BANK, A Member of
Citigroup; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15833
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01163-KJM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Tracy D. Lawson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
motion to amend. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129
(9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Denial of Lawson’s motion for leave to amend her complaint was not an
abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile. See Hartmann, 707 F.3d
at 1130; see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro
se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Gomes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 824 (Ct. App. 2011) (California law does
not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the
foreclosure process is indeed authorized” (citation omitted)).
Lawson’s contention that the district court held her to the standards of a
practicing attorney is not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
12-15833 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.