Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0829-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Niki-Alexander SHETTY, AKA Satish Shetty, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a Virginia Corporation; Does, 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56476
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 24, 2017
    Niki-Alexander Shetty, Pro Se
    
      Allison 0. Chua, Brian A. Paino, McGlin-chey Stafford, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Niki-Alexander Shetty, AKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims related to a consent judgment and an unlawful detainer action between SunTrust Mortgage, Ine. and third parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Shetty’s action was proper because Shetty lacks standing to enforce the terms of a government consent judgment with SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., and he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he has standing to prosecute claims arising from an allegedly wrongful unlawful detainer action filed against the third-party borrower. See Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273-74, 289-90, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008) (elements of Article III standing; prudential standing requires that a party must assert its own legal rights and may not assert the legal rights of another).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment of the complaint would be futile. See United States ex rel. Lee v. Smith-Kline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

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