RODOLFO VELASQUEZ V. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, No. 12-16845 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODOLFO VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-16845 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00433-LKKCKD v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings and defendants’ alleged failure to process his loan modification applications. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Velasquez’s request for oral argument set forth in his opening brief. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Velasquez’s wrongful foreclosure claim arising under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) because Velasquez failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also 12 U.S.C. § 5219a (providing guidelines for HAMP, a federal program whereby the United States government privately contracts with banks to provide incentives to enter into residential mortgage modifications); Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 131 S. Ct. 1342, 1347 (2011) (private right of action for violating a federal action rests on congressional intent to provide a private remedy; parties that incidentally benefit from a government contract may not enforce the contract absent an intent to the contrary). We do not consider 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) (per curiam). 2 12-16845 Velasquez’s motions, filed on September 12, 2013, February 12, 2014, and May 5, 2014, are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 12-16845
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.
