Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jose E. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Jose E. Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging wrongful foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hernandez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation lacked authority to commence foreclosure proceedings on behalf of defendant Deutsche Bank by recording a notice of default. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(2)(b) (as effective from Oct. 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009) (giving the beneficiary authority to execute and record a notice of default); Simmons Self-Storage v. Rib Roof, Inc., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 57, 331 P.3d 850, 856 (2014) (defining when an agent has actual authority).
Contrary to Hernandez’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering defendants’ evidence on summary judgment. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773-74 (setting forth standard of review and discussing requirements for authentication of evidence on summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration because Hernandez failed to establish any basis for relief. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-16134
Decided: April 16, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)