Opinion
20-15493
07-22-2021
PATRINA HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK; NICHOLAS PACUMIO, Branch Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 3:18-cv-07824-WHA William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Harrison's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Patrina Harrison appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action alleging racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lindsey v. SLT L.A., LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harrison failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the loan she sought from defendant Wells Fargo or whether Wells Fargo's reason for denying her loan application was pretextual. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1) (providing that under ECOA it is unlawful "for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the basis of race, color . . . ."); Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532, 536 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is applicable to FHA and § 1981 claims); Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc., 648 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff asserting a § 1981 claim must prove she is qualified for the loan sought).
AFFIRMED.