
    Deborah Hope FOREMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION; OneWest Bank, FSB, Defendants-Appellees, and Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, Defendant.
    No. 10-55868.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 18, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2012.
    Deborah Hope Foreman, Highlands Ranch, CO, pro se.
    Stephanie Lynn Krafchak, Esquire, Kenderton S. Lynch, Esquire, Krafchak & Lynch, William R. Harmsen, Esquire, Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Nat-sis LLP, Los Amgeles, CA, Jerome A. Madden, Esquire, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Arlington, VA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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, 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 283 Cal.Rptr. 53, 56 (1991).

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