MARISELA GOMEZ V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, No. 19-56317 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 26 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARISELA DANGCIL GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-56317 D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00866-AG-DFM MEMORANDUM* CALIBER HOME LOANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Marisela Dangcil Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising from an alleged loan modification agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson * 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). v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gomez’s claims against defendant Caliber Home Loans because Gomez failed to file suit within four years of the claims’ alleged accrual. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (statute of limitations for breach of written contract or for breach of its implied covenant is four years). Because Gomez voluntarily dismissed this appeal as to defendant Chase, we do not consider Gomez’s claim under the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights because it was alleged only against Chase. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 19-56317

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.