ANCHETA v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Kelly Grace Ancheta appeals from the district court's order dismissing her diversity action alleging violations of state law arising from the foreclosure of her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ancheta's wrongful foreclosure claims arising from (1) defendants’ allegedly improper assignment of the deed of trust, and (2) Mortgage Electronic Registration System's alleged lack of “agency relationship” with the beneficiary, because these defects render any such assignment voidable, not void. See Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845, 852 (2016) (explaining that a voidable transaction is subject to ratification by the parties); Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 790, 796 (2016) (untimely assignment to a securitized trust made after the trust's closing date is merely voidable); see also Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 390 (2013) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim under California law). We reject as without merit Ancheta's contention that the assignments were invalid because they were robo-signed. See Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 6 Cal.App.5th 802, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 15 (2016) (homeowners lack standing to challenge the validity of robo-signatures); see also Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 390 (2013) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim under California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ancheta leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See AE ex rel. Hernandez, 666 F.3d at 636 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendments would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.