Chen v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 022218 FED9, 15-15044
|Party Name:||NAN HUI CHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Trustee of Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust 2007-BRI Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-BR1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 22, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted February 13, 2018 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 4:13-cv-03352-YGR for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nan Hui Chen appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Campidoglio LLC v. Wells Fargo & Co., 870 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Chen's cancellation of instruments claim because Chen failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any of the recorded documents were void or voidable. See Thompson v. Ioane, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 501, 512 (Cal.Ct.App. 2017) (setting forth elements of cancellation of instruments claim under California law).
The district court properly dismissed Chen's slander of title claim because Chen failed to allege facts sufficient to show the recorded documents associated with the subject property contained false statements. See Seeley v. Seymour, 237 Cal.Rptr. 282, 288-89 (Ct. App. 1987) (setting forth elements of slander of title claim under California law).
The district court properly dismissed Chen's claim under the California Homeowner's Bill of Rights ("HBOR") because the statute did not go into effect until after defendants' alleged misconduct. See Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 790, 798 (Ct. App. 2016) (HBOR not retroactive).
The district court properly dismissed Chen's accounting claim because Chen failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any funds allegedly owed to her were unascertainable without an accounting. See Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 832...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP