Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gloria A. ROMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35018
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted November 6, 2015 Portland, Oregon
    FILED August 03, 2016
    Jeffrey A. Myers, Richard Michael Fernandez, Attorney, Bowles Fernandez Law LLC, Lake Oswego, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Robert E. Sabido, Attorney, Julie A. Smith, Attorney, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
    Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SOTO, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable James Alan Soto, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court properly entered summary judgment for the defendants and denied Gloria Romani’s motion for leave to amend her complaint as futile. Romani argues that the foreclosure sale of her property was invalid because the notice of sale that she received did not identify the proper beneficiary of the trust deed. However, the Oregon Trust Deed Act forbids post-sale challenges based on this technical defect in the notice of sale, for the reasons stated in Woods v. U.S. Bank N.A., 831 F.3d 1159, 2016 WL 4120687 (9th Cir. 2016). See Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.797(1) (formerly § 86.770(1)).

We need not consider whether Romani’s appeal is also barred by issue preclusion. For this reason, appellees’ motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.