N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ELENA M AR GAR ITIS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B AC HOM E LOANS SER VIC ING LP; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15643 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01741-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, M c KEOW N, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Ele na M arga ritis a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing he r a c t ion a

rising out of fore c losure proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Zadrozny v . Bank of N .Y. Me llon , 

# FIL ED JUN 18 2014 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im s unde r the Truth in Le nding Ac t (“ TILA” ), the Hom e Owne rship a nd Equity Prote c tion Ac t (“ HOEPA), a

nd the R e a l Esta

te Se ttle m e nt a

n d Proc e dure s Ac t (“ R ESPA” ), and M arga ritis’ s c la im s for bre a c h of fiduc ia ry duty and unjust enric hm e nt a s tim e -barre d be c a

use M a rgaritis file d he r a c t ion m ore tha n four y e ars a fte r the a lle ge d viola

tions. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 2614 (pre s c ribing a t m ost a thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita tions for viola

t ions of R ESPA); 15 U.S.C . §§ 1635(f), 1640(e ) (TILA a c tion for re sc ission m

ust be brought within thre e y e ars of c onsum m ation of the loa n ; a n a c tion for da

m a ge s unde r TILA a

nd HOEPA m

ust be brought within one y e ar of the a lle ge d viola

tion); Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 12-542 (pre sc ribing two-y e ar sta tue of lim i tations for c la im s of bre a c h of fiduc ia

ry duty ); Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 12- 543 (pre sc ribing thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita t ions for c la i m s of unjust enric hm e nt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t c la im be c a use the re is no priva

te right of a c tion unde r 15 U.S.C . § 1681s-2(a) and M arga ritis did not a

lle ge that she notifie d a

c re dit re p o rting a ge nc y

of he r dispute , a s re quire d to trigge r the dutie s se t forth in 15 U.S.C . § 1681s-2(b). Se e Gorman v . W olpoff & Abramson, LLP , 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im unde r the R a c ke te e r 1 2 - 1 5 6 4 3 2Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz a tions Ac t (“ R IC O ” ) be c a use M argaritis fa ile d to a lle ge spe c i fic fa c t s showing a patte rn of ra c ke t e e ring a c tivity . Se e Sanford v . Me m be rW

ork s, Inc . , 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th C ir. 2010) (disc ussing e l e m e nts of a R IC O c la im

and pa rtic ula rity re quire m e nts of Fe d. R . C iv. P. 9(b)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s fra udule nt c onc e a lm e nt c la im be c a use M argaritis fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts with the spe c ific ity

re q u ire d by Fe d. R . C iv. P. 9(b). Se e K

e arns v . Ford Motor C

o. , 567 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th C ir. 2009) (disc ussing R

ule 9(b)’ s spe c ific ity

re quire m e nt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c onspira c y c la i m be c a use she fa ile d to a lle ge suffic ie nt fa c ts to support a ny unde rly i ng c a

use s of a c tion. Se e Bak e r e x . re l. Hall Brak

e Supply , Inc . v . Ste w art Title

& Trust of Phx ., Inc . , 5 P.3d 249, 259 (Ariz . C t. App. 2000) (sta ting tha t unde r Ariz ona

la w, c onspira c y

is not an inde pe nde nt tort). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im s to se t a side the truste e ’ s sa le and quie t titlebe c a use M argaritis fa ile d

to obta in injunc tive re lie f be fore the truste e ’ s sa le of the p rope rty an d ha s wa i ve d he r de fe nse s a nd obje c tions to the sa le . Se e A riz . R e v. Stat. § 33-811(C ) (de fe nse s a nd obje c t ions to a

truste e ’ s sa le are wa ive d if the y are not ra ise d in a n a c tion re s ulting in injunc tive re lie f be fore the sa le ); BT C

apital, LLC

v . TD Se rv . C

o. of Ariz. , 275 P.3d 598, 600 (Ariz . 1 2 - 1 5 6 4 3 32012) (e n ba nc ) (e xpla ining tha

t onc e a truste e ’ s sa l e is c om

p l e te d, “ a pe rson subje c t to § 33-811(C ) c a nnot la te r c ha l le nge the sa le ba se d on pre -sa le de fe nse s or obje c tions” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im a lle ging a viola tion of C a lifornia

B usine ss a

nd Profe ssions C ode § 17200 be c a use the C a lifornia

sta tute doe s not a pply to a c tions or tra

n sa c tions tha

t took pla c e in Ariz ona . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im for wrongful fore c losure be c a

use Ariz ona

sta te c ourts do not re c ogniz e a wrongful fore c losure c a use of a c tion. Se e C

e rv ante s v . C ountryw i deHomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th C ir. 2011). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M argaritis’ s c la im s for pre datory le nding, unfa ir de bt c o lle c tion pra c tic e s, a n d sla nde r of title be c a

use M argaritis fa ile d to a lle g e suffic ie nt fa c ts to sta te pla u sible c la im s for re lie f. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a void dism issa l, “ a c om pla int m u st c onta in suffic i e nt fa c tua l m a tte r, a c c e p te d a s true , to sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng le ave to file an am e nde d c o m

pla int. Se eC

e rv ante s , 656 F.3d a

t 1041 (re vie wing for a

n a buse of disc re tion a

nd sta t ing tha t a distric t c ourt m ay

dism iss without le ave to a m e nd 1 2 - 1 5 6 4 3 4whe n am e ndm e n t would befutile ).

M argaritis’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning judic ia l bia s a re unpe rsua sive and not supporte d by the re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 6 4 3 5