Mers

Junod v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Good Law
584 F. App'x 465
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 201412-55712California1,619 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Patricia and Paul Junod appeal the district court’s dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a claim. They assert the district court erred by dismissing their claims for wrongful foreclosure and cancellation of the trustee’s deed upon sale; declaratory judgment; violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692p; and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200-17210. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the SAC’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

I.

Underpinning the SAC’s claims for wrongful foreclosure and cancellation of the trustee’s deed upon sale (Counts 5 and 6) is the allegation that the assignment of the Junods’ home loan obligation to a securitized investment trust was void because it did not comply with the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) governing the trust. Dismissal was correctly entered because this allegation is not plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.