Case Name: Mel A. MARIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LASALLE NATIONAL BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-13
Citations: 37 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 01-17237; D.C. No. CV-01-00050-RCC
Parties: Mel A. MARIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LASALLE NATIONAL BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Mel A. MARIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LASALLE NATIONAL BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-17237.
D.C. No. CV-01-00050-RCC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2002.
Decided June 13, 2002.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mel A. Marin appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for LaSalle National Bank and others alleging breach of contract, violation of the National Bank Act, and violation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act in connection with the handling of a mortgage. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's summary judgment de novo, Del E. Webb McQueen Dev. Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 69 F.3d 355, 358 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims because Marin is not a party to the con tract under which he seeks redress. See 12 U.S.C. § 86; 50 App.U.S.C. § 526, 581; Leal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 199 Ariz. 250, 17 P.3d 95, 99 (Ariz.Ct.App.2000); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 132 Ariz. 498, 647 P.2d 629, 631 (Ariz.1982).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.