Mayen v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

── Mayen v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO MAYEN, No. 24-6421 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-01915-RBM-AHG v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWMBS, Inc. formerly known as The Bank of New York; CHL MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH TRUST 2005-07; MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-07; NEWREZ, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2026** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: RAWLINSON, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Julio Mayen appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing, based on judicial estoppel, his claims against Defendants-Appellees for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, alleged securities-regulation and consumer-protection violations, and declaratory relief. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo constitutional claims. Guerrier v. Garland, 18 F.4th 304, 308 (9th Cir. 2021). “Ordinarily, we review a district court’s decision to deny a party leave to amend its complaint for an abuse of discretion,” but “if a district court denies leave to amend based on the futility of the amendment …, we review the decision de novo.” Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Mayen’s claims were barred by judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court has “listed three factors that courts may consider in determining whether to apply the doctrine of judicial 2 24-6421 estoppel.” Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001). “First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001) (citation modified). “Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create ‘the perception that either the first or the second court was misled.’” Id. (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1982)). “A third consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” Id. at 751. Although these fac