SPRINGER v. BANK TRUSTEE FOR MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2005 HE1 2005 HE1 (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Randy Springer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815, 816 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Springer’s wrongful foreclosure claim because Springer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he has standing to challenge defendant’s authority to foreclose or whether U.S. Bank lacks authority to foreclose. See Wood v. Germann, 130 Nev. 553, 331 P.3d 859, 861 (2014) (per curiam) (under Nevada law, a homeowner lacks standing to challenge the validity of a voidable loan assignment); Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 128 Nev. 505, 286 P.3d 249, 260-61 (2012) (explaining that Nevada law permits the severance and independent transfer of deeds of trusts and promissory notes without impairing the loan beneficiary’s right to foreclose).

The district court properly dismissed Springer’s fraud claim because Springer failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity).

AFFIRMED.