Rhonda Pittman v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. , 694 F. App'x 520 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RHONDA PITTMAN, No. 16-56017
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00348-GW-JEM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor
by merger with Wachovia Mortgage FSB
formerly known as World Savings Bank
FSB its Successors and/or Assigns; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Rhonda Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hunt v. Imperial
*
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).
Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction); Doe v.
Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The district court properly dismissed Pittman’s TILA claim for damages
because Pittman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo violated
TILA or that Pittman’s claim was not time-barred. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an
action for damages under TILA must be brought within one year of the
alleged violation).
To the extent Pittman seeks injunctive relief related to the nonjudicial
foreclosure sale, this court cannot grant that relief because the sale of the property
has already been completed. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d
933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from
granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot.”); Am. Cas.
Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot
when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be
granted).
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 16-56017
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-56017