ALPHONSO MASON V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, No. 15-15430 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALPHONSO MASON; SONJA BARNUM MASON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15430 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01709-JCM-NJK Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; LINEAR FINANCIAL LP, DBA Pardee Home Loans, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Alphonso Mason and Sonja Barnum Mason appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging violations of Nevada * 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). state law in relation to the Mason’s mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (statute of limitations); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1484 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996) (motion to remand). We affirm. The district court properly denied the Masons’ motion to remand their action to state court because, contrary to the Masons’ contentions, the district court properly determined that diversity jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) & (c)(1), 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that under § 1348, a national bank is “located” only in the state designated as its main office). The district court properly dismissed the Masons’ claims of predatory lending practices under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598D.100 and 598D.110, and their claims of fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, and unconscionability, because the Masons failed to file their action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), (3)(d), and (4)(b); USACM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, 754 F.3d 645, 648 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-year limitations 2 15-15430 period applies to fraud claims under Nevada law); Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n.6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Nevada law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims.”); Matter of Davis, 946 P.2d 1033, 1040 n.10 (Nev. 1997) (two-year limitations period applies to an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute prescribes a different limitation). AFFIRMED. 3 15-15430

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.