Kevin M. Jones; Cheryl A. Jones v. Citimortgage Inc., a business entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN M. JONES; CHERYL A. JONES,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE INC., a business entity;
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION, a business entity,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15976
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-02067-LJO-SMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kevin and Cheryl Jones appeal the district court’s dismissal of their first
amended complaint (“FAC”) against CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”), and Cal-Western
* 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).
FILED
JUN 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Reconveyance Corporation, asserting various claims arising out of a home loan
modification. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
1. The FAC did not state claims for either fraud or negligent
misrepresentation because it did not plausibly allege that Citi materially
misrepresented the monthly payment due under the modification agreement or that
the plaintiffs justifiably relied on any misrepresentation. See Davis v. HSBC Bank
Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012); Fox v. Pollack, 226 Cal. Rptr. 532,
537 (Ct. App. 1986).
2. The FAC did not state a claim under the California Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., because it failed to plausibly allege
that Citi violated any other laws, see Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2014), or engaged in fraudulent or unfair business practices, see Davis, 691 F.3d
at 1169-70; Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 544 (Cal.
1999).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a
second amended complaint after concluding further amendment would be futile.
See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --