N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KAYODE POW ELL,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ELLS FAR GO HOM E M OR TGAGE; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s,
and FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a s Truste e , De fe nda n t. No. 19-16536 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-04248-TSH
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 Thom a s S. Hixson a

nd M aria -Ela

na Ja m e s, M a gistra

te Judge s , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 12, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
MAY14 2021 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 : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M ILLER , C i rc u it Judge s. Kay ode Powe ll (“ Powe ll” ) a ppe a ls a judgm e nt issue d by

the distric t c ourt in favor of his loa

n se rvic e r, W e lls Fa

rgo B a nk, N.A. (“ W e lls Fa

rgo” ), a s we ll a s a
num be r of the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs. W e have jurisdic t ion 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 se , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . 1. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo a

nd
m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. C ampidoglio LLC

v . W e lls Fargo &C

o. , 870 F.3d 963, 973 (9th C ir. 2017). Sum m ary judgm e nt is prope rly gran te d whe n the re is no ge n u ine issue of m at e ria l fa c t; “ sum m ary judgm e nt will not lie . . . if the e vide n c e is suc h tha t a re a sona ble jury c ould re turn a

ve rdic t for the n onm oving pa

rty .” Se e Ande rson v . Libe r ty Lobby , Inc
. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to W e lls Fa

rgo. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, W e lls Fa

rgo did not owe

Powe ll a duty of c are in proc e ssing his loa n m odific at ion a

pplic at ions. Se e Lue ras v . BAC HomeLoans Se rv i c ing, LP , 221 C a l. App. 4th 49, 68 (2013) (fina nc ia l institutions ha

ve no “ c om

m on la w duty of c are to offe r, c onside r, or a pprove loa

n m odific ation, to offe r . . . a l te rnat ive s to fore c losure ,” or to ha

ndle a loa n to pre ve nt fore c losure ); N y mark v . He art Fe d.
2Sav . & Loan Ass’n , 231 C a l. App. 3d 1089, 1096 (1991) (fina nc ia l institutions owe no duty of c are to borrowe rs whe n a c ting a s le nde rs of m one y ). Eve n a ssum ing it did, there c ord e vide nc e doe s not e sta blish a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to W e lls Fargo’ s a lle ge d ne glige nc e . B e c a use the duty

of c are issue is not de te rm inative of this c a s e ’ s outc om e , we de c line to c e rtify the issue to the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt. Se e C a lif. R . C t. 8.548(a). 2. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s ruling on a m otion to strike

for a buse of disc re tion. Se eDav idson v . K imbe rly -C

lark C orp. , 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th C ir. 2018). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting W e lls Fa

rgo’ s M otion to Strike . The distric t c ourt ha d pre viously

dism isse d “ a ll c la im s ba se d on
c ha lle nge s to theAssignm e nt a nd tra nsfe r of the Loa

n.” The c ourt only

a llowe d Powe ll to a

m e nd the c o m

pla i nt with re spe c t to his ne glige nc e and UC L c l a im s a nd spe c ific a lly

wa rne d Powe ll tha

t it wa s “ not gra

nt[ing] Pla intiff le ave to a m e nd a s to
any of the othe r De fe n da

nts or to a dd a

ny othe r c la im s a ga i nst W e lls Fa rgo” and

“ w[ould] strike any

ple a d i ng tha

t doe s not c om

ply with this Order.” The distric t
c ourt c orre c tly

de te rm ine d tha

t the pa ra gra phs stric ke n we re not re le va nt to Powe ll’ s ne glige nc e or UC L c la im s be c a use the y m a de “ no re fe re n c e to c ontra c ts
or a gre e m e nts, nor d[id] the y a ddre ss the loa

n m odific ation proc e ss.” Thus, it wa s

3not a

n a b use of disc re tion for thedistric t c ourt to c onc lude that the pa ra g ra phs fe ll outsidethe sc ope of what Powe ll wa s pe rm itte d to a m e nd. 3. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to dism iss
a c om pla int or c la im

with pre judic e and without le ave to a m e nd. Ok

w u v . Mc K im , 682 F.3d 841, 844 (9th C ir. 2012). Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba sis of theFourth Am e nde d C om pla int without providing Powe l l le ave to a m e nd. Powe ll ne ve r sought to a m e nd his Fourth Am e nde d C o m

pla i nt, a nd “ [w] he re a

pa rty doe s not a sk the distric t c ourt for le ave to a m e nd, ‘ the re que st [on a

ppe a l] to re m a

n d with instruc tions to perm it
am e ndm e nt c om e s too la

te .’ ” Alask

a v . Unite d State

s , 201 F.3d 1154, 1163–64 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting J ac k son v . Am. Bar Ass’n , 538 F.2d 829, 833 (9th C ir. 1976)). 4. “ W e re vie w de novo [a ] distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of a c om pla i nt for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im ” and “ re vie w for a buse of disc re tion a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to dism

iss with pre

judic e .” Ok

w u , 682 F.3d a

t 844. Thedistric t c ourt did not e rr in dism i ssing Powe ll’ s robo-signing c la i m with pre judic e . Powe ll’ s robosigning c la im

de pe nde d

on a provision of the

C a l ifornia

Hom e owne r’ s B ill of R ights (“ H B OR ” ), C a l. C iv. C ode § 2924.17. Se c tion 2924.17 doe s not c onta in a
re troa c tivity

provision, a

n d the re are no othe r indic ations tha t the C a lifornia
4Le gisla

ture inte nde d

it a pply re troa c tive ly ; the re fore , it doe s not a pply re troa c tive ly to a l low Powe ll to bring a c la im re ga rding the a lle ge dly

robo-signe d doc um e nts be c a use the y we re signe d an d

re c o rde d prior to theHB OR ’ s e ffe c tive date , Ja nua ry 1, 2013. Se e My e rs v . Philip Morris C os., Inc
. , 28 C a l. 4th 828, 841 (2002) (“ [U] nle ss the re is a

n e xpre s s re troa c tivity

provision, a

sta tute will not

be a pplie d
re troa c tive ly

unle ss it is v e ry c le ar

from e xtrinsic sourc e s tha

t the Le gisla

t ure . . . m ust ha ve inte nde d

a re troa c tive a

pplic at ion.” (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a nd
c ita tion omitte d )); se e also Sate rbak v . J P Morgan C

haseBank

, N .A. , 245 C a l. App. 4th 808, 818 (2016) (c onc luding theHB OR did not a pply re troa c tive ly

to
a uthoriz e c ha lle n ge to de e d of trust a ssignm e nt re c orde d prior to e ffe c tive date of HB OR ). Powe ll did not raise in distric t c ourt his a rgum e nt re ga

rding nota

ry fra ud, nor did he c ite Se c tion 8205(b) of C a lifornia ’ s Gove rnm e nt C ode in e ithe r the First Am e nde d C om

pla int or in his opposition to W e lls Fa rgo’ s M otion to Dism

iss the First Am e nde d C om

pla int. This a

rgum e nt is the re fore wa ive d. S e e In reMortg. Ele c . Re gistration Sy

s., Inc
. , 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th C ir. 2014) (a rgum e nts not
m a de in distric t c ourt a

re ge ne ra lly

wa ive d ). 5. W e re vie w the de nia l of a re que st for a

c ontinua nc e of a sum m ary judgm e nt m otion for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Singh v

. Am. Honda Fin. C orp. , 925
5F.3d 1053, 1062–63 (9th C i r. 2019). The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Powe ll’ s re q

u e st to c ontinuesum

m ary judgm e nt. The c ourt ha d grante d Powe ll e xte nsions nume rous tim e s e arlie r in the proc e e d ings, a nd it e xpre ssly sta te d tha t it would “

not gra nt a ny furthe r e xte nsions a

b se n t a stipula

tion be t we e n the p artie s or c om

pe l ling re a sons to do so.” Fina lly , de s pite num e rous opportunitie s to do so, Powe ll ha s not c ite d any e vide nc e or a

rgum e nt tha

t would de fe at sum

m ary judgm e n t. 6. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s re s olution of a m otion for re lie f from judgm e nt pursua

nt to Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) for a buse of disc re tion. He nson v . Fid. N

at’l Fin., Inc

. , 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th C i r. 2019). The distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Powe ll’ s m o tion. Powe ll’ s e xc usa ble
ne gle c t a rgum e nt is wa ive d be c a

use he fa i le d to ra ise it a d e q uate ly in distric t c ourt,
and the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to addre ss it. In re Mortg. Ele c . Re

gistration Sy

s., Inc
. , 754 F.3d a

t 780. Nor did the

distric t c ourt e rr in de c lining to re visit its prior ruling tha t W e lls Fa

rgo did not owe

Powe ll a duty of
c are in proc e ssing his loa n m odific ation a

pplic ations. AFFIRM E D.

6