KARMEL ROE V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. 15-55471 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARMEL ROE, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-55471 D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01991-TJH-DTB MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Karmel Roe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 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 dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure * 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). 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Roe’s action because Roe lacks standing to challenge any assignment of her loan into a securitized trust. See, e.g., Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 796 (Ct. App. 2016) (holding that an assignment of a loan into a securitized trust that was allegedly forged or untimely was merely voidable and, therefore, the borrower lacked standing to challenge its validity). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roe leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). We reject as without merit Roe’s contentions that the district court violated her right to due process, incorrectly analyzed relevant case law, and neglected to address any of Roe’s claims. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55471
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.
