9th Cir.

Kang v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

April 23, 2026 ·3:23-cv-05106-KKE ·Unpublished · By James Taylor

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of mortgage lenders, ruling that appellants failed to prove the existence of an enforceable contract. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims lacked the written evidence required under Washington's statute of frauds and contract principles.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 4:05

Manjeet K. Kang and Amrik Singh Singh appealed pro se from a district court's summary judgment in their diversity action concerning a home loan. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, Nationstar Mortgage and U.S. Bank, breached an enforceable contract, mismanaged funds, and charged unlawful amounts for insurance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo to determine if there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of an enforceable agreement.

The panel reviewed the case de novo, applying the standard set forth in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. The court reasoned that the appellants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants breached an enforceable contract. Central to this ruling was Washington's statute of frauds, specifically Wash. Rev. Code § 19.36.010, which mandates that every agreement not to be performed in one year must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The court cited Blue Mountain Const. Co. v. Grant County Sch. Dist. No. 150-204 to reinforce that an expression of assent changing material terms acts as a counteroffer rather than an acceptance, consummating no contract. Because the plaintiffs could not produce written evidence satisfying these requirements, the court found no enforceable agreement existed. The panel also noted that it would not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.

The decision leaves the lower court's ruling in favor of the mortgage lenders intact. By affirming the summary judgment, the court effectively dismisses the appellants' claims regarding contract breaches, fund mismanagement, and insurance charges. The ruling reinforces the strict application of the statute of frauds in Washington for long-term agreements, requiring written evidence for enforcement. No remand instructions were issued as the case was fully resolved on the merits of the contract claim.

Play