Yolanda Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank Na

MEMORANDUM

Yolanda Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s claims of fraud and misrepresentation because Jones did not allege facts sufficient to show that she either actually or justifiably relied on the alleged' misrepresentations. See Small v. Fritz Cos., 30 Cal.4th 167 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 490 , 65 P.3d 1255, 1258, 1262 (2003) (listing elements of fraud under California law). Whether framed as a fraudulent misrepresentation or as a fraudulent omission, Jones could not have relied on Wells Fargo’s statements because her own pleadings state that it was “clear” after her interaction with Wells Fargo and before she agreed to the loan that she “could not afford such high monthly payments.”

Also, the district court properly dismissed Jones’s claim alleging fraudulent business acts under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because Jones did not allege facts sufficient to show that she actually relied on the alleged misrepresentation…