TRAVIS MIDDLETON V. INDYMAC MORTGAGE SVC., No. 12-57324 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TRAVIS MIDDLETON; GILDA EVANS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 12-57324 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06457-R-PJW v. MEMORANDUM* INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES/ONEWEST BANK FSB, Defendant, and ONEWEST BANK, FSB; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. * 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, Appellants’ requests for oral argument, set forth in their briefs, are denied. Travis Middleton and Gilda Evans appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging various federal claims related to a home mortgage loan and foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 784-85 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for lack of Article III standing). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Middleton’s claims because Middleton failed to allege facts sufficient to show an injury in fact. See Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785 (setting forth the elements of Article III standing). The district court properly dismissed Evans’s claims because Evans failed to allege facts sufficient to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a pleading must offer more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile). 2 12-57324 We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We reject Appellants’ contentions that the district court erred by dismissing their claims without allowing discovery against defendants and without a jury trial. Appellants’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their reply brief, are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 12-57324
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.
