780 Fed.Appx. 528 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-55467, Bistiline v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Docket Nº:17-55467
Citation:780 Fed.Appx. 528
Party Name:Kristine Ann BISTILINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney:Andrew Jay Kulick, Esquire, Law Offices of Andrew Jay Kulick, Saugus, CA, Richard Lawrence Antognini, Law Office of Richard L. Antognini, Grass Valley, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellant Bryant S. Delgadillo, John M. Sorich, Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant - Appellee JPMorgan...
Judge Panel:Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 18, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 528

780 Fed.Appx. 528 (9th Cir. 2019)

Kristine Ann BISTILINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55467

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 18, 2019

Submitted October 16, 2019 [*] San Diego, 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Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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.

Andrew Jay Kulick, Esquire, Law Offices of Andrew Jay Kulick, Saugus, CA, Richard Lawrence Antognini, Law Office of Richard L. Antognini, Grass Valley, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellant

Bryant S. Delgadillo, John M. Sorich, Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant - Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Gary E. Devlin, Esquire, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants - Appellees Homeward Residential, Inc., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Lindsey Kress, Regina J. McClendon, Attorneys, Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Ditech Financial LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04610-MWF-PLA

Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Kristine Ann Bistline1 appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her claims related to the foreclosure proceeding against her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We AFFIRM.2

1. The district court did not err in concluding that Bistline lacked standing under California law to challenge the validity of assignments of the beneficial interest in her deed of trust in a pre-foreclosure action.

Contrary to Bistline’s arguments, the California Supreme Court in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. expressly limited its holding to post-foreclosure sale situations only.

Page 529

62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845, 848 (2016) ("We do not hold or suggest that a borrower may attempt to preempt a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure by a suit questioning the foreclosing party’s right to proceed.");

see also id., 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d at 855 ("disallowing the use of a lawsuit to preempt a nonjudicial foreclosure, is not within the scope of our review, which is limited to a borrower’s standing to challenge an assignment in an action seeking remedies for wrongful foreclosure " (emphasis in original)).

The California Court of Appeal has refused to extend Yvanova to pre-foreclosure cases. See, e.g., Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 245...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP