Natasha BECKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant-Appellee.
Decided: January 09, 2020
Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,** District Judge.
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Attorney, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overhotlz, Alameda, CA, Erik B. Walker, Attorney, Justinian Lane and Associates, Pflugerville, TX, Chelsie Warner, Esquire, Attorney, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overhotlz, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Joseph Kenney, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Erik W. Kemp, Esquire, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, Kerry W. Franich, Severson & Werson, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Plaintiff-Appellant Natasha Beckett (“Ms. Beckett”) appeals from the dismissal, without leave to amend, of her California common-law fraud claim against Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, NA (“Bank of America”). She argues that the district court erred in concluding that her claim was time-barred because, under either the delayed discovery or estoppel by fraudulent concealment defenses, her claim did not accrue until she learned about the fraud, i.e., when she read a law firm advertisement posted by her attorneys. We disagree.
These defenses only delay accrual until a plaintiff “has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 110 P.3d 914, 920 (2005); see also Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Given the volume of missing or allegedly incomplete applications (five), the number of home inspections charged to her account (twenty-five), and her receipt of a notice of foreclosure shortly after she was approved for—and made several timely payments under—a loan modification plan, Ms. Beckett was on inquiry notice of fraud by, at the latest, the January 2011 short-sale of her home. She thus cannot benefit from either defense.
Ms. Beckett also challenges the district court’s denial of leave to amend her Complaint. However, the district court did not err because any amendment would have been futile. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717–18 (9th Cir. 2003).
For these reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Beckett’s claim is
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.