Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Winter’s claim for wrongfulforeclosure because Winter failed to allege facts sufficient to show a lack of default. See id. at 785 (“Nevada law requires that a trustor or mortgagor show a lack of default in order to proceed with a wrongful foreclosure claim.”). Moreover, Winter’s contention that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“MERS”) involvement rendered the assignment of the deed of trust and note invalid is foreclosed by Nevada law. See Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, — Nev. —, 286 P.3d 249, 259-60 (2012) (<HOLDING>), The district court properly dismissed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee (B) holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan (C) holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed (D) holding that when note and deed of trust were null and void and of no legal effect because of forgery assignee of note and deed of trust nevertheless had equitable lien upon property for value of construction work for which note and deed of trust were given (E) holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act
Output (English): holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act