
    Cindy DUPRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN WEST FINANCIAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56263
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Cindy Dupre, Pro Se
    T.'Robert Finlay, Joshua Ryan Hernandez, Esquire, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Mountain West Financial, Inc.
    John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Citibank, NA, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Aurora Loan Services, LLC
    Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Quality Loan Services Corporation
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cindy Dupre appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim because Dupre failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Jones v. Wachovia Bank, 230 Cal.App.4th 935, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 28 (2014) (stating elements of promissory estoppel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim after dismissing with prejudice Dupre’s federal claims. See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (granting district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to those over which district courts have original jurisdiction).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dupre’s third amended complaint without further leave to amend. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     