Case Name: Elizabeth Hope NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-27
Citations: 678 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 14-55509
Parties: Elizabeth Hope NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Hope NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55509
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 27, 2017
Elizabeth Hope North, Pro Se
Adam F. Summerfield, Esquire, Attorney, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Elizabeth Hope North appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismiss ing her diversity action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend a complaint. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing North's action without granting further leave to" amend because further amendment would be futile. See id: at 1007 (explaining that a district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has faded to cure deficiencies by previous amendments).
Appellees' request for judicial notice, filed on December 4, 2014, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.