CHANHT KEO V. FHLMC/FREDDIE MAC, No. 19-16984 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHANHT REATREY KEO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16984 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02688-RS MEMORANDUM* FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America (“Freddie Mac”), Defendant-Appellee, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Intervenor-DefendantAppellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Chanht Reatrey Keo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her foreclosure-related action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Dismissal of Keo’s constitutional claim was proper because the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) is not subject to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Am. Bankers Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 75 F.3d 1401, 1409 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Freddie Mac is not a government agency subject to the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”). Dismissal of Keo’s cancellation of instruments claim was proper because Keo failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Thompson v. Ioane, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501, 511-12 (Ct. App. 2017) (elements of a cancellation of instruments claim under California law). 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 2 19-16984 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 19-16984

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.