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.
Vernon DECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., National Association, AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2003-1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2003-1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Vernon Deck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights Act (“HBOR”), and other state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of statutory standing. Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for clear error the district court’s underlying factual determinations. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Thornburgh, 970 F.2d 501, 506 (9th Cir. 1991). We reverse and remand.
The district court did not commit clear error in finding, following an evidentiary hearing, that Deck did not sign the note relating to a refinance loan. See id. at 506. The district court erred, however, in finding that Deck lacked standing to sue for violations of HBOR because he was not a signatory to the note. HBOR defined a “borrower” as “any natural person who is a mortgagor or trustor and who is potentially eligible for any federal, state, or proprietary foreclosure prevention alternative program offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5 (repealed Jan. 1, 2018). Because it is undisputed that Deck is a trustor under the deed of trust securing the refinance loan, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on Deck’s claims under HBOR only.
We do not consider defendants’ alternative arguments concerning the merits of Deck’s claims under the HBOR, or the effect, if any, of the 2018 repeal of the specific statutory violations alleged.
We do not consider matters not raised before the district court, or 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).
Deck’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26) is granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 17-16680
Decided: October 26, 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)