Richard Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services

Ninth Circuit

Richard Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services

599 F. App'x 286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2015

Docket13-15656

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 F. App'x 286 (Richard Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services) 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

Richard Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services, 599 F. App'x 286 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard S. Gale appeals, from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gale’s claim for wrongful commencement of foreclosure proceedings because Gale’s complaint and records subject to judicial notice show that the notice of breach and default was issued after the substitution of trustee, in accord with Nevada law in 2008, and Gale lacked standing to challenge the timing of the assignment of the deed of trust to defendant LaSalle Bank National Association. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 107.028(4) (beginning June 10, 2011, the appointment of a new trustee is ineffective until the substitution is recorded); Wood v. Germann, — Nev.-, 331 P.3d 859, 859 (2014) (per curiam) (“[A] homeowner ... lacks standing to rely on the timing of [an] assignment as a basis for challenging the subsequent purchaser’s authority to enforce the loan.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We do not consider Gale’s contentions regarding the Truth in Lending Act, which were addressed in a prior appeal. See Gale v. First Franklin Loan Servs., 701 F.3d 1240, 1243-47 (9th Cir.2012).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice, filed on September 13, 2013, is granted.

Gale’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard S. Gale appeals, from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gale’s claim for wrongful commencement of foreclosure proceedings because Gale’s complaint and records subject to judicial notice show that the notice of breach and default was issued after the substitution of trustee, in accord with Nevada law in 2008, and Gale lacked standing to challenge the timing of the assignment of the deed of trust to defendant LaSalle Bank National Association. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 107.028(4) (beginning June 10, 2011, the appointment of a new trustee is ineffective until the substitution is recorded); Wood v. Germann, — Nev.-, 331 P.3d 859, 859 (2014) (per curiam) (“[A] homeowner ... lacks standing to rely on the timing of [an] assignment as a basis for challenging the subsequent purchaser’s authority to enforce the loan.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We do not consider Gale’s contentions regarding the Truth in Lending Act, which were addressed in a prior appeal. See Gale v. First Franklin Loan Servs., 701 F.3d 1240, 1243-47 (9th Cir.2012).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice, filed on September 13, 2013, is granted.

Gale’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 F. App'x 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-gale-v-first-franklin-loan-services-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack