Case Name: Dale CURTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA and Bank of America, N.A., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-16
Citations: 624 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 13-55203
Parties: Dale CURTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA and Bank of America, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
Dale CURTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA and Bank of America, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-55203.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 16, 2015.
Dale Curten, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
Richard P. Steelman, Jr., Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Dale Curten appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action raising various federal foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
We do not address Curten's argument that he timely exercised his right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act be cause Curten did not assert a rescission claim in his complaint and did not otherwise present this argument to the district court. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) ("These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived."); see also Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir.2011) ("[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.