ALI POORSINA V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 22-16213 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 24 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI R. POORSINA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16213 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-05098-DMR v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 18, 2023*** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Ali R. Poorsina appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings and the approval of a mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1). Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Poorsina’s action for lack of standing because Poorsina failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Wells Fargo’s approval of a mortgage loan made to nonparties injured Poorsina, that Wells Fargo caused Poorsina to suffer any harm, or that any injury to Poorsina could be redressed by a favorable decision. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021) (explaining requirements of Article III standing). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Poorsina leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 22-16213

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.