under the FHA is time-barred by the FHA’s two-year statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). Though Drawsand vaguely asserts that the statute should be tolled due to unspecified “fraud on the court” by unidentified Defendants, she never articulates the nature of such fraud or how such “fraud” prevented her from filing suit in a timely manner. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir.2006). In the absence of such facts, leave to amend need not be granted. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n. 2 (9th Cir.2003) (“Facts raised for the first time in plaintiffs opposition papers should be considered by the court in determining whether to grant leave to amend or to dismiss the complaint with or without prejudice.”); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citing Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911
holding that a court may properly deny a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief holding that a court may deny leave to amend when the moving party had the opportunity to amend earlier but waited after judgment to do so holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally