Case ID: f2d_961/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald SHEPHERD, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Rollin Barkley, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Administrator of the Veterans’ Administration, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rollin BARKLEY; Ronald Shepherd; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 90-15911, 90-16670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1991.
    Decided April 1, 1992.
    James M. Ackerman, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
    Malcolm L. Stewart, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
    
      Before: NORRIS, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
   In this appeal, we decide whether the Arizona anti-deficiency law is preempted by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) regulations that authorize the VA to collect deficiencies on VA-guaranteed home loans. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33-729 A, 33-814 G. Because the Arizona anti-deficiency law at issue here is identical to the Oregon anti-deficiency law we considered in Connelly v. Derwinski, 961 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir.1992), we hold, on the basis of that opinion, that Arizona’s anti-deficiency law is preempted by 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323(e). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment awarded to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs.

In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.

AFFIRMED.