
    Alphonso MASON; Sonja Barnum Mason, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; Linear Financial LP, DBA Pardee Home Loans, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15430
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Alphonso Mason, Pro Se
    Sonja Barnum Mason, Pro Se
    Richard C. Gordon, Esquire, Attorney, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Andrew Martin Jacobs, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Tucson, AZ, Amy F. Sorenson, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, NA
    Richard C. Gordon, Esquire, Attorney, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Amy F. Sorenson, Attorney, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellee Linear Financial LP
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alphonso Mason and Sonja Barnum Mason appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging violations of Nevada state law in relation to the Mason’s mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 2002) (statute of limitations); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1484 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996) (motion to remand). We affirm.

The district court properly denied the Masons’ motion to remand their action to state court because, contrary to the Masons’ contentions, the district court properly determined that diversity jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) & (c)(1), 1348; Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that under § 1348, a national bank is “located” only in the state designated as its main office).

The district court properly dismissed the Masons’ claims of predatory lending practices under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598D.100 and 598D.110, and their claims of fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, and unconscionability, because the Masons failed to file their action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), (3)(d), and (4)(b); USACM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, 754 F.3d 645, 648 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (three-year limitations period applies to fraud claims under Nevada law); Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n,6 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Nevada law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims.”); Matter of Davis, 113 Nev. 1204, 946 P.2d 1033, 1040 n.10 (1997) (two-year limitations period applies to an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except where the statute prescribes a different limitation).

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