Big Blue Capital Partners v. Recontrust Company

Ninth Circuit

Big Blue Capital Partners v. Recontrust Company

578 F. App'x 676

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2014

Docket12-35603

StatusUnpublished

This text of 578 F. App'x 676 (Big Blue Capital Partners v. Recontrust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Big Blue Capital Partners v. Recontrust Company, 578 F. App'x 676 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The district court dismissed the complaint filed by Big Blue Capital Partners, *677 which alleged that ReeonTrust Company failed to follow Oregon law when it initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against property now owned by Big Blue. Because ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, effectively abandoning the foreclosure proceedings, Defendants contend this appeal is moot. We agree with Defendants and dismiss the appeal. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th Cir.2012).

Big Blue does not dispute that Reeon-Trust rescinded the notice of default. Instead, Big Blue argues that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applies. See id. However, this exception “applies only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Big Blue has not made this showing.

After ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, the Oregon Supreme Court substantiated allegations in Big Blue’s complaint by holding that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) may not qualify as a trust deed’s beneficiary under Oregon law. See Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 353 Or. 668, 303 P.3d 301, 312 (2013). Defendants acknowledge the effect of this ruling, and we may therefore conclude that plaintiffs will not again be subjected to a foreclosure based on a notice of default that is issued by a trustee that is appointed by MERS acting as beneficiary under a deed of trust. See Vegas Diamond Props., 669 F.3d at 937.

The district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated. See ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1065 (9th Cir.2012).

DISMISSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided *677 by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

The district court dismissed the complaint filed by Big Blue Capital Partners, *677 which alleged that ReeonTrust Company failed to follow Oregon law when it initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against property now owned by Big Blue. Because ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, effectively abandoning the foreclosure proceedings, Defendants contend this appeal is moot. We agree with Defendants and dismiss the appeal. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th Cir.2012).

Big Blue does not dispute that Reeon-Trust rescinded the notice of default. Instead, Big Blue argues that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applies. See id. However, this exception “applies only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Big Blue has not made this showing.

After ReeonTrust rescinded the notice of default, the Oregon Supreme Court substantiated allegations in Big Blue’s complaint by holding that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) may not qualify as a trust deed’s beneficiary under Oregon law. See Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 353 Or. 668, 303 P.3d 301, 312 (2013). Defendants acknowledge the effect of this ruling, and we may therefore conclude that plaintiffs will not again be subjected to a foreclosure based on a notice of default that is issued by a trustee that is appointed by MERS acting as beneficiary under a deed of trust. See Vegas Diamond Props., 669 F.3d at 937.

The district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated. See ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1065 (9th Cir.2012).

DISMISSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided *677 by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 F. App'x 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/big-blue-capital-partners-v-recontrust-company-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack