Case Name: Robert PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E*TRADE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-30
Citations: 464 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 10-55679
Parties: Robert PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E*TRADE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Robert PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E*TRADE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-55679.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2011.
Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
Scott Aron Kron, Esquire, Law Office of Scott A. Kron, Laguna Niguel, CA, Stephen Edward Abraham, Law Offices of Stephen Abraham, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Harold R. Jones, John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In 2003, Robert Palmer entered into a contract to purchase a home in Laguna Nigel, California. E*TRADE provided financing for the purchase. Several years later, after discovering material defects in the home, Palmer filed suit against E"TRADE, alleging that various statements made by E "TRADE'S representatives incident to his purchase of the home were misrepresentations. At issue in this appeal are Palmer's claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Palmer also appeals the district court's denial of his motion to file a third amended complaint to add a claim for fraudulent concealment.
Under California law, the general rule is that a lender owes no duty to a borrower with respect to an appraisal procured for its purposes as a lender. See Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 283 Cal.Rptr. 53 (1991). The district court correctly found that the statements made by E*TRADE's representatives were either true or opinions that did not rise to the level of actionable misrepresentations.
Palmer already had two opportunities to amend his complaint and cannot show good cause to file a third amended complaint. Therefore, the district court properly denied Palmer's motion to file a third amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.