Don Garth Cole v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Aztec Foreclosure Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DON GARTH COLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC;
AZTEC FORECLOSURE
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Nos. 08-16902
09-15256
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00836-PMP-RJJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Don Garth Cole appeals pro se from the
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-16902 2
district court’s judgments dismissing his action alleging violations of the Truth in
Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and Nevada state law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Proctor v. Vishay
Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1218 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the attachments to
the complaint show that Appellees are entitled to foreclose upon Cole’s property.
See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] court may
consider material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint on a motion
to dismiss. . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to Cole’s contentions, the district court properly denied Cole’s
motion to remand because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over
Cole’s claims, and the notice of removal and the joinder to removal were not
procedurally defective. See Proctor, 584 F.3d at 1224-25 (concluding that “the
filing of a notice of removal can be effective without individual consent documents
on behalf of each defendant”).
Cole’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --