- Harris v. Bank of America (In re Harris) Case No. 13-60000 (9th Cir. March 9, 2015) (unpublished)
- Debtor-Appellant failed to plausibly allege facts that show he complied with the state law requirements; Debtor-Appellant failed to state with particularity the circumstances constituting alleged fraud; and it was not abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to dismiss Debtor-Appellant's third amended complaint without leave to amend.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from the 9th Circuit BAP's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's dismissal of debtor-appellant's third amended complaint without leave to amend.
- Debtor-Appellant's pleadings failed to show that he complied with the state law requirements for his wrongful foreclosure claim by alleging only that he had sought a new loan to pay off his preexisting loan, but failing to do and offer everything that is necessary on his part to complete the transaction. Debtor-Appellant's fraud claim failed to allege sufficiently the time, place, and specific content of the false representations or the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when, after reviewing several failed version of the complaint, it concluded that Debtor-Appellant would not be able to cure the deficiencies therein by amendment and dismissed Debtor-Appellant's third amended complaint without leave to amend
- Murphy, Gould, and Tallman
In re Paul Cumbess
Summarizing by Kathleen DiSanto
In re S.S. Body Armor Inc.
Summarizing by Thomas Horan
3088 in the system
2 Being Processed