Dale Curten v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE CURTEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-55203
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09565-JFW-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted: December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dale Curten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action raising various federal foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
FILED
DEC 16 2015
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 --

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d
1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
We do not address Curten’s argument that he timely exercised his right of
rescission under the Truth in Lending Act because Curten did not assert a
rescission claim in his complaint and did not otherwise present this argument to the
district court. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were
never argued before the district court, we deem them waived.”); see also Baccei v.
United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[This Court] will not reframe
an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided
by the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
13-55203 2

-- 2 of 2 --