NATASHA BECKETT V. BANK OF AMERICA, No. 18-55086 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 9 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATASHA BECKETT, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-55086 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-08328-PA-AS v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 6, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,*** District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Natasha Beckett (“Ms. Beckett”) appeals from the dismissal, without leave to amend, of her California common-law fraud claim * 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). *** The Honorable Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. against Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, NA (“Bank of America”). She argues that the district court erred in concluding that her claim was time-barred because, under either the delayed discovery or estoppel by fraudulent concealment defenses, her claim did not accrue until she learned about the fraud, i.e., when she read a law firm advertisement posted by her attorneys. We disagree. These defenses only delay accrual until a plaintiff “has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914, 920 (Cal. 2005); see also Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Given the volume of missing or allegedly incomplete applications (five), the number of home inspections charged to her account (twentyfive), and her receipt of a notice of foreclosure shortly after she was approved for— and made several timely payments under—a loan modification plan, Ms. Beckett was on inquiry notice of fraud by, at the latest, the January 2011 short-sale of her home. She thus cannot benefit from either defense. Ms. Beckett also challenges the district court’s denial of leave to amend her Complaint. However, the district court did not err because any amendment would have been futile. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717–18 (9th Cir. 2003). For these reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Beckett’s claim is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
