N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B EVER -LEIGH B . PENNEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. NDEX W E ST LLC ; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55449 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-05567-ODW M AN 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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. B e ve r-Le igh B . Pe nne y

a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in he r a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la i m s re lating to 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. SEC

v . N ite , 207 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a ffirm .



# FIL ED MAR 03 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for W e lls Fa

rgo B ank, N.A. (“ W e lls Fa

rgo” ) be c a

use Pe nne y fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r she wa s da m a ge d by re lia nc e on a fa lse prom ise tha

t W e lls Fa rgo would not fore c l ose on the prope rty during thee va luation of he r Hom e Afforda

ble M o rtga ge Program

a pplic ation. Se eLazar v . Supe r ior C ourt , 12 C a l.4th 631, 638 (1996) (se tting forth the

e le m e nts of a fraudule nt m isre pre se ntation c l a im ); Rossbe rg v . Bank of Ame ric a, N . A. , 162 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 525, 539 (C t. App. 2013) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a

prom issory

fra ud c la im ); US Ec ology

, Inc . v . State , 28 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 894, 904-05 (2005) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a prom issory

e stoppe l c la im ). The distric t c ourt did not err in fa iling to sua sponte re c use itse lf be c a

use Pe nne y did not de m onstra

te e xtra judic ia l bia s or pre

judic e . S e e28 U.S.C . § 455; se e a lso N

oli v . C IR , 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th C i r. 1988) (“ [I] f no m otion is ma de to the judge . . . a

pa rty will be ar a

gre ate r burde n on a

ppe a l in de m o nstra

ting tha t the j udge . . . [e rre d] in fa iling to gra nt re c usa l unde r se c tion 455.”(c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). C ontra ry to Pe nne y ’ s c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt ha d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r this a c tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331, a nd it wa s not re quire d to re m and this a c tion to C a lifornia sta te c ourt. 1 3 - 5 5 4 4 9 2W e re je c t Pe nne y ’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to order an a c c o unting. W e do not a ddre ss m atte rs not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly ra ise d a

n d a rgue d in the ope ning brie f or ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009). AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 5 5 4 4 9 3