Case ID: f-appx_510/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jimit H. MEHTA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, an entity of unknown form; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-55701.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Deferred Jan. 11, 2013.
    Resubmitted Jan. 18, 2013.
    Filed Mar. 6, 2013.
    Daniel Anthony Lawton, Esquire, Law-ton Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Mark Gerard Rackers, Esquire, Edward D. Vogel, Esquire, Karin Dougan Vogel, Esquire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R.' Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Mehta appeals the dismissal of his promissory estoppel and misrepresentation claims against Defendant Wells Fargo. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal for a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir.2001). A complaint must provide sufficient factual allegations to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Plausibility requires facts that “allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

The district court properly held Mehta’s claimed reliance to be implausible. Given the short time frame between the promise and the foreclosure date, it is not plausible that Mehta would have pursued the claimed avenues of relief. Thus, for the reasons set forth by the district court, we uphold the dismissal.

We deny the motions to strike and for judicial notice as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.