Varbel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.

509 F. App'x 658
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 19, 2013
Docket12-16389
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 509 F. App'x 658 (Varbel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.) 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
Varbel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 509 F. App'x 658 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Duane Varbel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under *659 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot because the trustee has now sold the property to a third party. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Varbel failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property. Under Arizona statutes governing the trustee’s sale, Varbel has now waived his defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 83-811(0 (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) (“Where ... 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, Varbel no longer has any effective remedy. We therefore dismiss Varbel’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).

Appellees’ request for judicial notice of the Deed Upon Sale is granted.

The district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, District Court Docket Item No. 17, 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 provid *659 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Clancy v. Mancuso
N.D. California, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 F. App'x 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varbel-v-mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc-ca9-2013.