NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIM KERRIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. QUALSTAR CREDIT UNION; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 35174
D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 01528

- JCC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON , and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Kim Kerrigan appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Washington state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failu re to state a cl aim under Federal

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35174

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6)

. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Kerrigan’s quiet title claim because Kerrigan failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the statute of limitations bars

a ny threatened foreclosure action

. See Wash. Rev. Code § 7.28.300 (providin g for quiet title action by record owner of real estate where an action to foreclose on a

mo rtgage or deed of trust on the real estate would be barred b y the statute of limitations); Edmundson v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 378 P.3d 272, 276

- 77 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (stating that “the deed of trust foreclosure remedy is subject to a six

year statute of limitations” and “when recovery is sought on an obligation pay able by installments, the statute of limitations runs against each installme nt from the time it becomes due”); Bingham v. Lechner , 45 P.3d 562, 566

- 68 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that the commencement of a nonjudicial foreclosure tolls the statute of li mitations). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kerrigan’s request for certification to the Wa shington Supreme Court because Kerrigan failed to show that Washington law regarding whether a nonjudicial foreclosure toll s the statute of limitations for reinstituting foreclosure “has not been clearly determined.” Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020 ; see Thompson , 547 F.3d at 1059 (standard of review) ; Bingham , 45 P.3d at 566

- 68.3 17

- 35174

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kerrigan’s request for leave to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is permitted when amendment would be futile). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kerrigan’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) motion because Kerrigan did not establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) ). We reject as meritless Kerrigan’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law).
AFFIRMED.