Bistiline v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 101819 FED9, 17-55467

Docket Nº:17-55467
Party Name:KRISTINE ANN BISTILINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
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

KRISTINE ANN BISTILINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,


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

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

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


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. 365 P.3d 845, 848 (Cal. 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. 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 Cal.App.4th 808, 815 (2016). Because "there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts." Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Lewis v. Tel. Emps. Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th Cir. 1996)). 3

2. The district court also properly dismissed Bistline's claim for slander of title based on the defendants-appellees'...

To continue reading