BRENDA CONGDON V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 17-35765 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENDA CONGDON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35765 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01629-RSL v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FKA World Savings Bank, FSB, its successors and/or assigns, successor by merger with Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Brenda Congdon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * 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). discretion. Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (motion for leave to amend); Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Congdon’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) because Congdon failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (requirements for reconsideration). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Congdon’s motion for leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Chappel, 232 F.3d at 725-26 (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile . . . .”). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-35765

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.