JONATHAN B. WOODS and KERRIE WOODS v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation

12-17483Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit16.12.2015

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN B. WOODS and KERRIE
WOODS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
TAYLOR BEAN & WHITAKER
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-17483
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00723-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan B. Woods and Kerrie Woods appeal pro se from the district court’s
dismissal of their diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
FILED
DEC 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against BAC Home
Loans Servicing LP and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated
because “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.” Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783-84
(Ariz. 2012) (en banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ leave to
amend because it had previously granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d
1112, 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard of review and
explaining that “the district court’s discretion in denying amendment is
‘particularly broad’ when it has previously given leave to amend”).
AFFIRMED.
12-17483 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.