CINDY DUPRE V. MOUNTAIN WEST FINANCIAL, INC., No. 14-56263 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY DUPRE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-56263 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01480-CAS-OP MEMORANDUM* MOUNTAIN WEST FINANCIAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Cindy Dupre appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * 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). dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim because Dupre failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Jones v. Wachovia Bank, 179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 28 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating elements of promissory estoppel). The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim after dismissing with prejudice Dupre’s federal claims. See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (granting district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to those over which district courts have original jurisdiction). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dupre’s third amended complaint without further leave to amend. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 14-56263
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.
