749 Fed.Appx. 601 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-55053, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. v. Johnston

Docket Nº:17-55053
Citation:749 Fed.Appx. 601
Party Name:MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC, et al, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Timothy J. JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:JoAnn T. Sandifer, Esquire, Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO, John M. Sorich, Heather Stern, Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees Ronald Henry Freshman, Esquire, Attorney, Fallbrook, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellant
Judge Panel:Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN, District Judge.
Case Date:January 23, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 601

749 Fed.Appx. 601 (9th Cir. 2019)

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC, et al, Plaintiff-Appellees,

v.

Timothy J. JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-55053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 23, 2019

Argued and Submitted December 3, 2018 Pasadena, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

JoAnn T. Sandifer, Esquire, Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO, John M. Sorich, Heather Stern, Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees

Ronald Henry Freshman, Esquire, Attorney, Fallbrook, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-04853-PA-GJS

Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,[*] District Judge.

Page 602

MEMORANDUM[**]

Timothy Johnston appeals the district court’s order granting Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc.’s (MERS) motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Johnston sought and received a state court quiet title judgment without naming MERS, despite knowing of MERS’s alleged interest in the property. MERS challenged the quiet title judgment in this action. The district court properly concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Rooker -Feldman doctrine did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because MERS was not a party to the state court quiet title action. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464-66, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006) (per curiam).

The district court properly concluded that MERS had standing to bring this action. Plaintiffs seeking relief in federal court must establish the three elements that constitute the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of Article III standing, namely, that they have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP