From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neyer v. GMAC Homecomings Fin. Bank

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 11, 2017
No. 11-15722 (9th Cir. May. 11, 2017)

Opinion

No. 11-15722

05-11-2017

LELAND ANTHONY NEYER; JUNE E. NEYER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GMAC HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01671-GEB-CMK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Leland Anthony Neyer and June E. Neyer 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, Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Neyers' action because the Neyers failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant failed to provide a required disclosure under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (identifying service-related inquires that require a loan servicer to respond); see also Medrano, 704 F.3d at 667 ("[L]etters challenging only a loan's validity or its terms are not qualified written requests that give rise to a duty to respond under § 2605(e).").

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot the Neyers' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for a preliminary injunction).

We reject the Neyers' contention that the district court improperly refused to file their "fourth amended complaint." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (other than amending a pleading once within certain time limits, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Neyer v. GMAC Homecomings Fin. Bank

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 11, 2017
No. 11-15722 (9th Cir. May. 11, 2017)
Case details for

Neyer v. GMAC Homecomings Fin. Bank

Case Details

Full title:LELAND ANTHONY NEYER; JUNE E. NEYER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GMAC…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 11, 2017

Citations

No. 11-15722 (9th Cir. May. 11, 2017)