N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LISA STR

UGALA, a

n individual, on be ha lf of he rse lf a

nd on be ha lf of the c la ss of a ll othe rs sim i la

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. FLAGSTAR

B ANK, FSB , a

Fe de ra l Savings B ank,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 19-16774 D.C . No. 5:13-c v-05927-EJD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd SC HR OEDER

and B ER ZON, C i rc uit Judge s . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Lisa Struga la a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision dism issing he r c l a im s for bre a c h of c ontra c t, bre a c h of the im plie d c o ve na

nt of 

# FIL ED DEC 11 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling, a

nd fra ud a ga inst De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e Fla g sta

r B ank, FSB (“ Fla gsta

r” ) without le a

v e to a m e nd. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts of this c a s e , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . W e a sse ss our own jurisdiction denovo. Tow nse n d v . Univ . of Alask a , 543 F.3d 478, 482 (9th C ir. 2008). W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting a m otion to dismiss unde r Fe d . R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Me tzle r Inv . GMBH v
. C orinthian C

olls., Inc
. , 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th C ir. 2008). W e re v i e w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of le ave to a m e nd a c om pla int for a

buse of disc re tion. DC

D Programs, Ltd. v. Le ighton , 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th C ir. 1987). 1. The distric t c ourt dismisse d a ll but oneof Struga l a ’ s c la im s without le ave to a m e nd. He r de c ision not to a m e nd he r re m a ining c la i m , whic h she doe s not se e k to re vive on a

p p e a l, doe s not re nde r the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt

“ m anufa c ture d” and doe s not deprive us of jurisdic tion to re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l orde r. S e e Rodrigue

z v . Tac o Be ll C

orp. , 896 F.3d 952, 955–56 (9th C ir. 2018). 2. Struga l a

ha s suffic ie ntly

a lle ge d Artic le III sta

n ding. At the

ple a ding sta ge , the “ irre d

u c ible c onstitutiona

l m inim um of sta nding” re quire s the pla intiff to a lle ge an injury

in fa c t tha

t is fa irly tra c e a ble to the de fe nda

nt’ s c onduc t a

nd c an be
2re dre sse d

by a favora ble c ourt de c ision. Lujan v . De f e nde rs of W

ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Struga la ’ s Se c ond Am e nde d C o m pla int spe c ific a l ly

a l le ge s the a m ount of fe de ra l taxe s she ove rpa id a n d the late fe e s a

nd a c c o unting c osts she inc urre d a s a

re sult of Fla gsta

r’ s m o rtga ge -inte re s t re porting pra c tic e s an d its de c ision not to disc l ose the c h a nge it m a de to thosepra c tic e s in 2011. Those injurie s c ould be re dre sse d by a judgm e nt a

warding he r dam a ge s or re stitution. He r a lle gations suffic e to e sta blish Artic le III sta

n ding a t the ple a ding sta ge . 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Struga la ’ s c l a im s unde r C a lifornia la w for bre a c h

of c ontra c t, bre a c h of the im plie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith and fa ir de a ling, a

nd fra u d. Struga l a fa ile d to sta

te a c la i m for bre a c h of c ontra c t. She c onc e de d tha t he r m ortga ge c ontra c t with Fla gsta r c onta ine d no e xpre ss te rm s c o nc e rning Fla gsta r’ s m ortga ge inte re st re porting pra c tic e s, a nd she inste a d a s se rte d

tha t Fla gsta r’ s c om plia nc e with 26 U.S.C . § 6050H wa s a n im plie d te rm of the c o ntra c t. Unde r C a lifornia la w, im plie d te rm s are disfa

vore d “ and should be

re a d into c ontra c ts only upon grounds of obvious ne c e ssity ,” whic h is shown by sat isfy ing a

five
e le m e nt te st. In re

Marriage

of C orona , 92 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 17, 31 (C a l. C t. App. 2009). The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t c om plia nc e with 26 U.S.C
.

3§ 6050H wa s not a n im plie d te rm

of the m ortga ge c ontra c t

be c a use Struga la ’ s c la im did not sa

t isfy tha t te st. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, the im plie d c ove na nt “ c annot im

pose substa

ntive dutie s or limi ts on thec ontra c ting pa rtie s be y ond thoseinc o rporate d in thespe c ific te rm s of the ir a gre e m e nt,” and it “ e xists m e re l y to pre ve nt one c ontra c ting pa rty from unfa irly frustrat ing theothe r party ’ s right to re c e ive the be n e fits of the agre e m e nt ac tually made .” Guz v . Be c h te l N at’l Inc
. , 8 P.3d 1089, 1110 (C a l. 2000). The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Struga la ’ s the o ry

of bre a c h would im prope rly im pose ne wsubsta

ntive dutie s on Fla gsta

r, and tha t he r a lle ge d loss of ta x be ne fits a

nd re lat e d injurie s we re not dep rivat ions of be ne fits of the
m ortga ge c ontra c t. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Struga la did not al le ge a

pla usible c la im of fra ud. The de fe nda

nt’ s knowle dge of fa lsity

is a n e sse ntia l e le m e nt of a fraud c la im

unde r C a lifornia

la w. Brak k ev . Ec on. C

onc e pts, Inc
. , 153 C a l . R

ptr. 3d 1, 4 (C a l. C t. App. 2013). “ To survivea m otion to dism iss, a c om p la int m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c t

ua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to ‘ sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla u sible on its fa c e .’ ” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Be ll Atl. C o rp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “ [T] h e te ne t tha t a c ourt m ust a c c e pt a s true a ll of thea lle gations in a c om pla int is ina

pplic a ble to le ga l
4c onc lusions.” Id. The only fac ts Struga la a lle g e d c onc e rning Fla gsta r’ s knowle dge of fa l sity

we re tha t it c h ange d its m ortga ge inte re st re p o rting pra c tic e s in 2011 a nd tha t it did not inform

borrowe rs of the c h ange . The se fa c ts a re

“ c o nsiste nt with”knowing de c e ption, but the y are “ just a s m uc h in line ” with a la wful c ha nge in busine s s pra c tic e s. Tw ombly , 550 U.S. a t 554. “ [W ] he re the we ll-ple a de d fa c ts do not perm it the c ourt to infe r m ore tha n the m e re possibility of
m isc o nduc t, the c om

pla int ha s a lle ge d —

but it ha s not ‘ s how[n] ’

— ‘ that the ple a de r is e ntitle d to re l ie f.’ ” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679 (a l te ration in origina l) (quoting Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(a )(2)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d he r fraud c la im
. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Struga la le ave to file a

Third Am e n de d C om

p la int, whic h would ha

ve ba se d he r bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im

on he r de e d of trust with Fla gsta r ra the r tha

n he r m ortga ge c ontra c t . The distric t c ourt e xpre ssly c onside re d e a c h of the re le va nt fa c tors gove rning whe the r to gra

nt le ave to a

m e nd a nd found undue

de la y and pre judic e be c a

use Struga la sought to alle ge a

ne wthe ory

of lia bility ne arly five y e ars into the litiga tion ba se d on fa c ts tha

t should ha

ve be e n a ppa re nt to he r m

uc h e arlie r. A distric t c o urt doe s not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing le ave to a

m e n d ba se d on undue de la

y whe re the fa c ts unde rly ing thepropose d am e n dm e nt we re ava ila ble to

5the p la intiff throughout the litiga tion. C hodos v
. W

e st Publ’g C

o. , 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th C ir. 2002). AFFIRM E D.

6