From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sayegh v. John Enright, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 18, 2012
473 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2012)

Summary

upholding that complaints should allege facts that would support tolling the statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Jameson v. Univ. of Idaho

Opinion

No. 11-55030 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04794-JFW-JCG

05-18-2012

FAHED SAYEGH, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN ENRIGHT, INC., a California Corporation, DBA John Enright, Inc., Defined Benefit Pension Plan; FIRST SECURITY MORTGAGE HOME LOANS, INC., a California Corporation, DBA First Security Mortgage; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE COMPANY, a California Corporation; PAUL RIOS, an individual, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding


Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, FISHER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

The district court dismissed Failed Sayegh's claim for damages under the Truth in Lending Act, finding the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and denied him leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile. Sayegh argues that the court abused its discretion by denying him an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts that would support tolling the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Sayegh's proffer to the district court of the kind of facts that he would allege if he were given the opportunity to amend his complaint was insufficient to support either equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. On appeal, Sayegh has not advanced any facts that would plausibly support tolling the statute of limitations. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied leave to amend based on futility. See Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 717-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding denial of leave to amend on the basis of futility where the plaintiffs proffered facts to the district court that were insufficient to support tolling and failed to offer additional facts on appeal).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Sayegh v. John Enright, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 18, 2012
473 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2012)

upholding that complaints should allege facts that would support tolling the statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Jameson v. Univ. of Idaho
Case details for

Sayegh v. John Enright, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FAHED SAYEGH, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN ENRIGHT, INC.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 18, 2012

Citations

473 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Moreland v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

See supra at 9-10. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of contract,…

Jameson v. Univ. of Idaho

Facts that support tolling a statute of limitations, such as facts suggesting the statute should be tolled on…