Debra Lynn Toner v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBRA LYNN TONER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, Successor in
Interest to Bank of America, National
Association as Successor by Merger to
Lasalle Bank, N.A. as Trustee for
Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates WMALT Seres 2006-AR9,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16012
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-01946-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 18, 2023***
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). We reject as meritless Toner’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16012
Debra Lynn Toner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her civil action against U.S. Bank, N.A. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.
2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2004)
(magistrate judge jurisdiction). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Toner’s action for lack of standing
because Toner quitclaimed her interest in the property and failed to allege any
rights under the mortgage. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) (“An action must be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”); Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 367
(same); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[U]nder
Fed. R. Evid. 201, a court may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.’”);
Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912, 931 (Ct. App.
2013) (private standing under California’s Business and Professions Code); Chao
Fu, Inc. v. Chen, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381, 389 (Ct. App. 2012) (standing in quiet title
and cancellation of instrument actions).
Contrary to Toner’s contention, the district court did not improperly
combine its screening review with consideration of defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. See Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (standards for § 1915 screening and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16012
Rule 12(b)(6) motions are the same).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --