Deborah Hope Foreman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Onewest Bank, Fsb

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH HOPE FOREMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION; ONEWEST BANK,
FSB,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB,
Defendant.
No. 10-55868
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05474-SVW-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2012**
FILED
SEP 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-55868 2
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Deborah Hope Foreman, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal order. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Foreman’s claims seeking money
damages against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in its
capacity as receiver because, in light of the FDIC’s worthlessness determinations,
Foreman’s claims were moot. See Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,
615 (9th Cir. 2007) (damages claim moot where there are no assets in the
receivership to satisfy the claim).
The district court properly dismissed Foreman’s negligence claim against the
FDIC in its corporate capacity because Foreman did not sufficiently allege that the
FDIC owed her a duty of care, which is “a prerequisite to establishing a claim for
negligence.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 283 Cal. Rptr. 53, 56 (Ct.
App. 1991).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55868 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Foreman’s motion
to reconsider the order dismissing OneWest Bank because Foreman failed to
establish any basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty,
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --