MEMORANDUM *

Although Plaintiff alleges that the Substitution of Trustee form designating Power Default Services as trustee was a forgery, the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) fails to plead critical elements of such a claim. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1987, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Without any claim that the signatory lacked authority to sign the Substitution of Trustee form or that Defendants acted with an intent to defraud, the SAC fails to go beyond “labels and conclusions” and provide “[factual allegations ... to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

The SAC is Plaintiffs fourth filing to raise claims challenging the validity of the foreclosure. Because Plaintiff still falls short of stating a valid claim for relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the complaint cannot be saved by amendment and dismissing with prejudice. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 580 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.