N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALIC E QUINONEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56273 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02881-R -VB K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Alic e Quinone za

p pe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing he r a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a n d sta te la w c la im s re lating to her m ortga ge and the fore c losure of he r prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l 

# FIL ED JUN 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). He b bev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c at e in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Although the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Quinone z ’ s c om pla int be c a use Quinone z ’ s c la i m s we re tim e ba rre d or fa i le d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta te a c la im , the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

providing “

n o e xpla nation for dism issing with pre

judic e , de spite the fa c t

tha t the ope rative c om

pla int wa s the first a nd only c om pla int file d

by [Quinone z ] , who wa s proc e e d ing pro se . ” Shark e y v . O'N e al , 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th C ir. 2015). M ore ove r, it is not a bsolute ly c le ar that the tim e l ine ss de fic ie n c ie s in Quinone z ’ s c la im s c ould not be c ure d by am e ndm e nt. Se eLuc as v . De p ’t of C orr. , 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ Unle ss it is a

b solute ly c le ar that no a m e ndm e nt c an c ure the de fe c t . . . , a pro se litiga

nt is e ntitle d to notic e of the c om pla int’ s de fic ie nc ie s a

nd a n opportunity

to a m e nd prior to dism

issa l of the a c tion.” ). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate and re m and for the distric t c ourt to pe rm it Quinone z to file an am e nde d c om

pla int. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Quinone z ’ s R ule 60(b) m otion be c a

use Quinone z did not de m onstra te any grounds wa

rranting suc h re lie f. Se eSc h. Dist. N

o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty ., Or. v . Ac andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth grounds for re lie f from judgm e nt).

1 2 - 5 6 2 7 3 2W e re je c t Quinone z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t de fe nda nts c om m itte d fra ud on the c ourt or fa ile d to a

nswe r the c om

pla int in a tim e ly m anne r. The pa rtie s’ re que sts for judic ia l notic e , file d on Ja n ua ry 30, 2013 a

nd June 5, 2013, a re de nie d a s unne c e s sa

ry . The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 2 - 5 6 2 7 3 3