Pamela Chyba v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, AKA JPMorgan Chase & Co.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA CHYBA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, AKA
JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-56082
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00838-JAH-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pamela Chyba appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lyon v. Chase Bank
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-56082
USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011) (motion for judgment on the
pleadings); Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (motion to
dismiss). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henry v. Gill
Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
Dismissal of Chyba’s FCRA claims was proper because Chyba failed to
exhaust the claims before filing suit in district court as required by the Financial
Institutions, Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). See
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d); Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060-
61 (9th Cir. 2014) (no jurisdiction exists over claims not properly exhausted
through FIRREA’s administrative process).
We reject as without merit Chyba’s contention that the district court’s denial
of her motion for in camera review violated her due process rights.
Washington Mutual’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 30, 2015, is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --