Case Name: Maria L. ROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee for DOWNEY 2004-AR2; Central Mortgage Company d/b/a Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company; U.S. Bank, National Association; Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-13
Citations: 622 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 13-56300
Parties: Maria L. ROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee for DOWNEY 2004-AR2; Central Mortgage Company d/b/a Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company; U.S. Bank, National Association; Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
Maria L. ROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee for DOWNEY 2004-AR2; Central Mortgage Company d/b/a Central Mortgage Loan Servicing Company; U.S. Bank, National Association; Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-56300.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2015.
Filed Nov. 13, 2015.
Joseph Charles La Costa, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brian S. Thomley, Malcolm & Cisneros, A Law Corporation, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria L. Ros appeals from the district court's dismissal of her complaint without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ros contends that de' novo review by this Court will reveal that amendment could save her complaint and that the district court's denial of leave to amend was therefore improper. However, Ros does not contest any of the district court's bases for its dismissal of her claim, nor does she set forth any facts or legal arguments which she would add to her complaint if amendment were permitted. In the absence of any argument by which this Court can reevaluate Ros's complaint, we cannot say that leave to amend would not have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.