N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : R OB ER T HAR

R IS, De

btor, R OB ER T HAR

R IS, Appe lla

nt, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A NA, a s suc c e ssor by m e rge r to La Sa lle B ank NA; JPM OR GAN C HASE & C O.; C ALIFOR

NIA REC ONVEYANC E C OM PANY, Appe lle e s. No. 13-60000 B AP No. 11-1600 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc he r, Hollowe ll, a

nd Dunn, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 5, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED M AR 09 2015 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. ** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : M URPHY, *** GOULD, a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s. De btor–Appe lla

n t R obe rt Ha

rris a ppe a ls the ba

nkruptc y a

ppe lla t e pa ne l’ s (B AP) a ffirm anc e of the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s dism issa l of his third a m e nde d c om pla i nt without le ave to a

m e nd. W e a ffirm
. W e “ c onduc t[] an inde pe nde nt re vie w of the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c i sion without de fe rring to theB A P.” In reSabban , 600 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota

t ions re m ove d ). W e re vie w a ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision on a
m otion to dism

iss de nov o . In reW

arre n , 568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th C ir. 2009). Howe ve r, we re vie w for a buse of disc re tion a

de nia l of le ave to a

m e nd by a ba nkruptc y c ourt. Ditto v . Mc C

urdy , 510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th C ir. 2007). W e m ay a ffirm the B AP’ s re sult on a

ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Se e In re J one s , 657 F.3d 921, 924 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting In reLe av itt , 171 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th C ir.1999)). Harris, a pro se

pa rty be low, a rgue s tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt fa ile d to provide “ wide latitude ” whe n c onstruing his ple a dings. W e re je c t this a rgum e nt. First, Ha rris fa ile d to a lle ge te nde r pla usibly
. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). An alle gat ion of te nde r is re quire d whe n a sse rting wrongful

*** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l R . M urphy , Se n ior Unite d State s C irc u it Judge for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 2fore c losure an d re que sting a

se t a side orde r unde r C a lifornia la w. Se e Lona v
. C itibank , N .A. , 202 C a l . App. 4th 89, 112 (2011) (te nde r is a “ c ondition pre c e de nt” to re c e iving a

se t a side orde r); In re

C e d a no , 470 B .R . 522, 529 (B .A.P. 9th C ir. 2012) (C a lifornia

c ourts re quire a

de fa ulte d borrowe r to a lle ge te n de r to m a inta in a c a use of a c tion “ for irre gula rity in the [fore c losure ] sa le proc e dure .” ). As the B AP note d, the c lose st Ha

rris c am e to a lle ging te nde r wa s whe n he a lle ge d, unde r his fraud c la im , tha

t he sought a

ne w loa n to pa y off the old one . Eve n the n, howe ve r, Harris’ a lle gation did not ac c ount for C a lifornia ’ s stric t “ te nde r rule ” re quire m e n ts, inc l uding “ do[ing] and offe r[ing] e ve ry thing tha t is ne c e ssa

ry on [the borrowe r’ s] pa rt to c o m ple te the tra

nsa c t ion, a

nd [tha t the borrowe r] must fairly mak e k now n his purpose

w ithout ambiguity , a

nd the a c t of te nde r m

ust be suc h tha

t it ne e ds only a c c e pta n c e by the one t o whom

it is m a de to c om

ple t e the tra

nsa c tion.” G affne

y v . Dow ne y Sav . & Loan Assn. , 200 C a l. App. 3d 1154, 1165 (Ct . App. 1988) (e m pha sis in origina

l). Ha rris’ third a

m e nde d c om

pla i nt, e ve n c onstrue d libe ra lly and with the“ gre at le e way ” ty pic a lly give n pro se

litiga nts’ ple a dings, se e Brazil v
. Unite d State s De pt. of N a v y , 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th C ir. 1995), doe s not pla usibly a lle ge fa c ts tha

t show hec om

plie d with C a lifornia ’ s stric t te nde r re quire m e nts. The ba nkruptc y c o urt prope rly

dism isse d

Ha rris’ wrongful fore c losure c l a im and re que s t for a

se t a side orde r. 3Se c ond, Ha rris’ fraud c la im

doe s not sa

tisfy the he i ghte ne d ple a ding re quire m e nt of R

u le 9(b) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure , whic h re quire s a pa rty to “ sta te with pa rtic ula rity the c irc um s ta

nc e s c o nstituting fra

ud . . . .” Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 9(b). Eve n

though Ha

rris file d his a dve rsary

proc e e ding c o m

pla int pro se , he m ust still “ follow thesa

m e rule s of proc e dure tha t gove rn othe r litiga

n ts.” Brione s v . Riv i e ra Hote l & C

a sino , 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th C ir. 1997) (quoting K ing v . Atiy e h , 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th C ir.1987)) (inte rna l quota tions re m ove d). Eve n giving Ha

rris “ gre at le e way ” in tha

t c onte xt, his fra

ud c la im fa ils to a l le ge suffic i e ntly

the re quire d

“ tim e , pla c e , a

nd spe c ific c o nte nt of the fa lse re pre se ntations a s we ll a s the ide ntitie s of the pa rtie s to the m isre pre s e ntation,” e ve n in rudim e nta

ry form . S anford v
. Me mbe rW

ork s, Inc
. , 625 F.3d 550, 558 (9th C ir. 2010). The ba

nk ruptc y c ourt prope rly

dism isse d Ha

rris’ fra ud c la im
. Harris a lso a

rgue s tha t “ [l] e ave to a

m e nd m ust be grante d unle ss it is c le ar that the c om pla int’ s de fic ie n c ie s c annot be c ure d by am e ndm e nt” and tha

t “ [i] t is not c le ar in this c a se tha

t the c om pla int’ s de fic ie nc ie s c ould not bec ure d by am e ndm e nt.” Furthe r, Ha rris a rgue s tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt “ did not provide writte n findings to ac t a s guida

nc e for Harris” so tha

t he c ould a

m e nd his c om pla i nt for a

third tim e to survivedism issa l . W e re je c t the se argum e nts.

4C ontra ry to Ha rris’ first a

rgum e nt, four fa c tors de te rm ine whe the r a de nia l of le ave to a

m e nd is a n a buse of disc re tion: (1) ba d fa ith; (2) undue de la y ; (3) pre j udic e to the opposing pa rty ; a nd (4) futility

of am e ndm e n t. D itto v . Mc C urdy , 510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th C ir. 2007). As to futility , the ba nkruptc y c ourt ga ve Harris thre e opportunitie s to dra ft a satisfa c tory

c om pla i nt a fte r he fa ile d the first tim e . While Ha

rris a dde d a

nd droppe d c la im s throughout his c o m pla int-dra fting proc e s s, he se ttle d on thre e c la im s for the fourth a nd fina l ve rsion— frau d, wrongful fore c losure , and a re que st for a

se t a side orde r. B ut Ha

rris ha d
m a inta ine d the se c la im s in thepre vious ite ra tions of his c om pla i nt tha t the c ourt ha d he ld ina d e quate . The ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in dism issing Ha

rris’ third a

m e nde d c om

pla int without gra

nting le ave to a

m e nd, be c a use a fte r se e ing se ve ra l fa ile d ve rsions of the c om pla int, the ba

nkruptc y c ourt re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t Ha rris would not be

a ble to c ure his c la im s’ de fic ie nc ie s by am e ndm e nt. That Ha rris proc e e de d pro se

doe s not c ha

nge our c o nc l usion. Although pro selitiga nts re c e ive “ gre at le e w ay ” whe n a c ourt c onstrue s the i r ple a dings, opposing pa rtie s are still e ntitle d to a

“ m inim um thre s hold” inform ing the m of what the y a lle ge dly did wrong. Brazil , 66 F.3d a t 199. Ha rris’ third a

m e nde d c om

pla int wa s de fic ie nt, but heargue s tha t a p ro se litiga n t is e n title d to som e form of guida nc e 5from

the ba nkruptc y c ourt in orde r to dra ft a

satisfa c tory

c o m pla int. Ha

rris c ite s no a uthority for this princ iple and we c an find none . Ha rris did not me e t the

“ m inim um thre shold” of giving notic e of va lid c la im s to theopposing pa rtie s. The ba nkruptc y c ourt did not he lp Ha

rris dra ft his c o m

p la int, but nonethe le ss we c onc lude tha

t the c ourt’ s se v e ra l gra

nts of le ave to a

m e nd, a s we l l a s its re insta te m e nt of Ha

rris’ a d ve rsa ry proc e e ding a fte r at first dism issing it for failure to prose c ute , support thec onc lusion tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt ga

ve “ gre at le e way ” to Ha rris, fa irly e nte rta ine d his pro se

a dvoc a c y e fforts, a nd c orre c t ly

e v a luate d the de fic ie nc ie s of Ha

rris’ prior c om

pla ints tha

t we re c onside re d a

nd re je c te d. AFFIRM E D.

6