GILBERT G. BEEZLEY, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
v.
FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CORPORATION; DOES 1 THROUGH 10, DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court properly dismissed the complaint and denied leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Plaintiff sued Fremont, alleging violations of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The district court dismissed the complaint and denied leave to amen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Consumer Credit Protection Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
A complaint should not be dismissed “unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 100-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also Gibson v. United States, 781 F. 2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1986). The district court properly granted Fremont Indemnity Company’s (Fremont) motion to dismiss Gilbert Beezley’s (Beezley) complaint.1
Beezley alleges in his complaint that Fremont violated various sections of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. (15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1693r). However, Fremont is not a “creditor” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f), nor is Beezley a “consumer” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1602(h), nor was any “credit” extended pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1602(e). Finally, the “debt” involved was not a debt as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). Because Beezley’s complaint fails to allege a violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act or any other applicable federal statute, the district court correctly dismissed his complaint with prejudice, which we interpret as a dismissal of the action.
The denial of leave to amend a complaint is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau, 701 F. 2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 822, 104 S.Ct. 88, 78 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Beezley’s motion to file a supplemental complaint because it failed to provide any new information that would remedy the deficiencies in the original complaint. Beezley’s proposed amended complaint continued to allege violations of the same inapplicable federal statutes found in his original complaint and failed to allege any new basis upon which he would have been entitled to relief. The order of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. The district court erroneously characterized its ruling as a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. This ruling is more accurately characterized as a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Black v. Payne, 591 F. 2d 83, 86 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 867, 100 S.Ct. 139, 62 L.Ed.2d 90 (1979). See also Haddock v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 777 F. 2d 462, 464 n. 4 (9th Cir.1985). However, we may affirm the district court on any basis fairly supported by the record. City of Las Vegas v. Clark County, 755 F. 2d 697, 701 (9th Cir.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sierra Pac. Indus. v. Lyng, 866 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
Carlissa Churchill v. The F/V Fjord, 892 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
Hanna Boys Ctr. v. Miller, 853 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1988)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957)
- Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983)
- Coniglio v. Warden, Clinton Correctional Facility, 464 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1983)
- Simutis v. Daniunas, 464 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Claiborne, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986)
- Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986)
- Hollis O. Black v. Payne, 591 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1979)
- City OF LAS Vegas v. Clark Cnty., 755 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Black v. Payne, 444 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1979)
- Weatherford v. Alabama, 444 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1979)