April Premo Williams v. Fannie Mae

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FANNIE MAE; BANK OF AMERICA;
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY; ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ;
HUGH FRATER; BRIAN MOYNIHAN;
MARK CALABRIA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16782
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00848-AWI-HBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
April Premo Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
* 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
AUG 4 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16782
(“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act in connection with her mortgage loans. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). McGinity v. Procter &
Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 517 (2004) (explaining that Title II of
the ADA applies to public entities, which includes state and local governments and
their agencies or instrumentalities); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,
1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case under the
Rehabilitation Act); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104,
1114-16 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that under Title III of the ADA, there must be
a connection to an actual physical place, and there is no discrimination where
disabled individuals are given the same opportunity as everyone else); see also
Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 982 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing the
“content” versus “access” distinction under the ADA).
Because Williams failed to make any argument in her opening brief
regarding the district court’s dismissal of her breach of contract claim, Williams
has waived any challenge to the dismissal of this claim. See Tri-Valley CAREs v.
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Claims not made in

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16782
an opening brief in a sufficient manner to put the opposing party on notice are
deemed waived.”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --