Ronald Turner v. Bank of America Home Loans

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD TURNER; DIANA TURNER, No. 11-16688
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00465-JCM-
LRL
v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, MEMORANDUM *
BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ronald and Diana Turner appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Turners’ wrongful foreclosure and
quiet title claims because the Turners failed to allege facts showing that they were
not in default when defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. See
Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996) (per curiam)
(“In a quiet title action, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove good
title in himself.”); Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623
(Nev. 1983) (wrongful foreclosure claim requires allegation that a lender exercised
the power of sale or foreclosed upon property when the homeowner was not in
default); see also Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 260 (Nev. 2012)
(en banc) (holding that, under Nevada law, Mortgage Electronic Registration
System, Inc. may be a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that such a
designation does not irreparably split the note and the deed of trust).
The district court properly dismissed the Turners’ civil conspiracy claim
after dismissing the underlying wrongful foreclosure claim. See Eikelberger v.
Tolotti, 611 P.2d 1086, 1088 & n.1 (Nev. 1980) (civil conspiracy claim must arise
from an underlying wrongful act).
The Turners’ contentions regarding the district court’s denial of their
motion to remand and application of federal, rather than state, pleading standards
2 11-16688
are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16688