Lehnerd v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Lehnerd v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

689 F. App'x 875

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 24, 2017·No. 15-16641·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Wendle V. Lehnerd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the appeal.

Lehnerd failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property, and he therefore waived any defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-811(C) (defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 275 P.3d 598, 600 (2012) (en banc) (once a trustee’s sale is completed, “a person subject to § 33-811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or objections”). Because the foreclosure sale has been completed, we cannot grant Leh-nerd any effective relief and dismiss Leh-nerd’s appeal as moot. See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

*876 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wendle V. Lehnerd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the appeal.

Lehnerd failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property, and he therefore waived any defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-811(C) (defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 275 P.3d 598, 600 (2012) (en banc) (once a trustee’s sale is completed, “a person subject to § 33-811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or objections”). Because the foreclosure sale has been completed, we cannot grant Leh-nerd any effective relief and dismiss Leh-nerd’s appeal as moot. See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

*876 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Lehnerd v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 689 F. App'x 875 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

689 F. App'x 875 (Lehnerd v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Bt Capital v. Td Service Co. of Arizona

275 P.3d 598 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2012)

Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc.

560 F.3d 1137 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Opinion

Related