Carol Stent v. Bank of America

MEMORANDUM

Carol A. Stent and David Y. Nakahara, an attorney, appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 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.8d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stent’s claim for fraudulent foreclosure under Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act because Stent failed to allege facts showing that any foreclosure had occurred. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224 , 181 P.3d 670, 674 (2008) (dismissing claim based on speculative future act).

The district court properly dismissed Stent’s claim for intentional interference because Stent failed to allege facts showing that defendants were aware of the prospective contractual relationship that she had with the potential buyer. See Wichinsky v. Mosa, 109 Nev. 84 , 847 P.2d 727, 729-30 (1993) (explaining the elements of an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim).

Dismissal of Stent’s negligence claim was proper because Nevada’s economic loss doctrine bars a party from recovering for…