
    Kevin M. JONES; Cheryl A. Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIMORTGAGE INC., a business entity; Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, a business entity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15976.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2015.
    
    Filed June 12, 2015.
    Michael D. Maloney, Louis White PC, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Brian H. Gunn, Esquire, Senior, Wolfe & Wyman, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Yele-na Cayton, Esquire, Robin Prema Wright, Esquire, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is ’ suitable for decision without oral argument. ■See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin and Cheryl Jones appeal the district court’s dismissal of their first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Citi-Mortgage, Inc. (“Citi”), and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, asserting various claims arising out of a home loan modification. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

1. The FAC did not state claims for either fraud or negligent misrepresentation because it did not plausibly allege that Citi materially misrepresented the monthly payment due under the modification agreement or that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on any misrepresentation. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir.2012); Fox v. Pollack, 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 226 Cal.Rptr. 532, 537 (1986).

2. The FAC did not state a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., because it failed to plausibly allege that Citi violated any other laws, see Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th Cir.2014), or engaged in fraudulent or unfair business practices, see Davis, 691 F.3d at 1169-70; Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527, 544 (1999).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint after concluding further amendment would be futile. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th Cir.1990).

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