Eric Skinner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC J. SKINNER, No. 12-15301
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00710-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, trustee of WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-
AR8 Trust; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
(MERS),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: TALLMAN, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Eric J. Skinner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
*
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).
action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656
F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Skinner’s claim for “erroneous representation as to standing to
foreclose” was proper because his allegations did not “plausibly suggest an
entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); see also
Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Arizona
law recognizes a successor trustee’s authority to initiate and conduct a foreclosure
sale after the borrowers’ default, without any requirement that the beneficiary
demonstrate possession of the note underlying the deed of trust.”); Hogan v.
Washington Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 782 (Ariz. 2012) (en banc) (“Arizona’s
non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority
or ‘show the note’ before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Skinner’s request
for oral argument. See Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., 926 F.2d 865,
867 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review).
Skinner’s motion to file an oversized reply brief, submitted on
September 27, 2012, is granted, and the Clerk is directed to file the reply brief
2 12-15301
submitted on September 27, 2012.
Defendants’ motion to strike Skinner’s supplemental excerpts of record,
submitted on October 10, 2012, is granted.
Skinner’s request to amend his reply brief and attach an exhibit, submitted
on October 19, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15301