Moss Caballero v. Bank of America

468 F. App'x 709
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 15, 2012
Docket10-17818
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 F. App'x 709 (Moss Caballero v. Bank of America) 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
Moss Caballero v. Bank of America, 468 F. App'x 709 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Moss Caballero appeals from the district court’s dismissal on the plead *710 ings of this diversity action against Defendants Bank of America, Federal National Mortgage Association, NDex West, LLC, and Does 1-100. Reviewing de novo the interpretation of state law, Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 636 F.3d 501, 505 (9th Cir.2011), we affirm.

The district court correctly held that California Civil Code section 2932.5 does not apply to deeds of trust. After the district court issued its decision, the California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in a thorough and well-reasoned decision, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Calvo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 199 Cal.App.4th 118, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 815 (Ct.App.2011), rev. denied (Cal.S.Ct. Jan. 4, 2012). For the reasons stated in Calvo and the many district-court decisions that have reached the same conclusion, e.g., Roque v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 09-00040, 2010 WL 546896 (N.D.Cal.2010) (order), we find no “convincing evidence” that the California Supreme Court would hold that California Civil Code section 2932.5 applies to deeds of trust. See Hayes v. County of San Diego, 658 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir.2011) (order) (“In deciding an issue of state law, when there is relevant precedent from the state’s intermediate appellate court, the federal court must follow the state intermediate appellate court decision unless the federal court finds convincing evidence that the state’s supreme court likely would not follow it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided *710 by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 F. App'x 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-caballero-v-bank-of-america-ca9-2012.