Michael Sattari v. Washington Mutual

MEMORANDUM

Sattari mistakenly referenced California statutes rather than Nevada statutes throughout his complaint. Because Sattari was a pro se litigant when he wrote the complaint, we construe it liberally to infer that he meant to reference Nevada law. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 , 127 S.Ct. 2197 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Sattari claims the bank engaged in unfair business practices. Under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), “[a]n action may be brought by any person who is a victim of consumer fraud.” Nev. Rev.Stat. § 41.600(1). A claim under the NDTPA requires a “victim of consumer fraud to prove that (1) an act of consumer fraud by the defendant (2) caused (3) damage to the plaintiff.” Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651, 658 (D.Nev.2009) (order). Consumer fraud encompasses deceptive practices, such as “[k]nowingly mak[ing a] ... false representation in a transaction.” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598.0915(15). Sattari does not raise a genuine issue of material fact…