JAN SAMZELIUS V. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSO, No. 13-15115 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN SAMZELIUS, No. 13-15115 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03295-EDL v. MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successor by Merger LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Loan Trust 2006-3AR; WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 26, 2016*** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** Jan Samzelius appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile. See id. (explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where . . . amendment would be futile”). We do not consider the district court’s dismissal order because Samzelius failed to address the district court’s dismissal of his claims in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). AFFIRMED. 2 13-15115

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.