Lowell Robinson, Jr. v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOWELL ROBINSON, Jr., Master Sergeant No. 23-16071 USMC, Retired, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00687-SMB Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; LEANDRO GUILLEN, Loan Advisor; JOYA LEWIS, Loan Associate; STACY MARTIN, Capital Title; MANDY BENNETT, Capital Title/Supervisor; RANDY MOULTRY, Mueller Services Inc's Appraiser; ALONZO GONZALEZ, JP Morgan Chase/Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Lowell Robinson, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) arising from a loan application process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action because Robinson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants discriminated against him under the ECOA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a) (prohibiting discrimination by creditors with respect to credit transactions on the basis of certain protected grounds); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 23-16071