Helen Reader v. Bank of America Na

Good Law
582 F. App'x 719
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 7, 201412-15205California691 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Helen E. Reader appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising from 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). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly denied Reader’s motion to remand because the district court had diversity jurisdiction and defendants timely removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) (diversity jurisdiction); Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and holding that each defendant is entitled to thirty days to exercise his removal rights after being served).

The district court properly dismissed Reader’s claims for wrongful foreclosure and tortious interference with enjoyment of property, and her request for a declaratory judgment, because her allegations did not “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1043-44 (explaining that “Arizona state courts have not yet recognized a wrongful foreclosure cause…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.