Edgar Perry v. Cashcall, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Edgar Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state claims relating to his home loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Perry’s claims against the State of California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages against a state or an arm of the state).
The district court properly dismissed Perry’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against CashCall, Inc. because Perry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he consummated a loan with CashCall. See Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mort. Co., 582 F.2d 503 , 505 (9th Cir. 1978) (“There can be no violation of [TILA] until the transaction is consummated.”).
The district court properly dismissed Perry’s breach of contract claim against CashCall because Perry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that CashCall breached the terms of a contract with him.…