Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00180/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00180-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David M. Campbell and Marie G. 

Campbell, a married couple,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

California Reconveyance Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0180-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 29, 2012, the Court held a telephone conference to address a discovery 

dispute. Plaintiffs requested documents from Defendants related to the transfer history of 

Plaintiffs’ loan and the authority of Deborah Brignac to execute certain documents. 

Defendants objected on relevancy grounds. The Court ordered the parties to brief the 

issue, and the parties have complied. Docs. 44, 45. For reasons stated below, the Court 

will grant in part Plaintiffs’ discovery request. 

I. Loan Transfer History. 

Plaintiffs made the following discovery request of Defendants: 

Supply all supporting documentation for the Loan Transfer History, including proof of negotiation, transfer and payment of value. A transfer history should start with the entity that originated the loan (The “Lender”) and move forward too (sic) the present with supporting documentation of all transfers, and this transfer history must show U.S. Bank, as Trustee for the MBS pool in the chain of title. If you are without knowledge of the entire Loan Transfer History, please provide documentation to the extent that you have knowledge. 

Docs. 44 at 2, 45 at 2. 

 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have already admitted all of the transfers in the 

Case 2:11-cv-00180-DGC Document 46 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

loan history, and that Defendants have produced all of the documents needed to show 

these transfers. Doc. 44 at 5. Defendants also argue on the basis of Hogan v. 

Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., 261 P.3d 445, 464-65 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011), and 

Diamond v. One West Bank, No. 09-1593-PHX-FJM, 2010 WL 1742536 (D. Ariz. April 

29, 2010), that the “paper trail” Plaintiffs request is not required for foreclosure under 

Arizona law and is therefore irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims. Id. at 6. 

 Plaintiffs respond that they have not admitted all of the transactions in the loan 

transfer history. Doc. 45 at 4. The amended complaint states only “on information and 

belief” that First Magnus, which originated Plaintiffs’ loan, sold the note “to an unknown 

party at some unknown time.” Doc. 45 at 4, see Doc. 19, ¶ 6. The complaint also uses the 

word “purported” to describe the subsequent assignment and substitution of trustee. Id., 

¶¶ 40, 41, 43. Plaintiffs make several other allegations: that the Trust which purportedly 

holds their note actually closed 39 days before their note was created, and that 

Defendants omitted the transfer of the note from First Magnus to Washington Mutual in 

its answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Plaintiffs argue that these facts call into question 

whether the loan they originated with First Magnus was transferred to Washington 

Mutual and subsequently placed into the WAMU Mortgage Pass Through Certificates for 

WMALT Series 2006-5 Trust (the “Trust”), as Defendants claim (see Doc. 44 at 2). 

Doc. 45 at 5-6. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have only produced a spreadsheet to 

show that the loan was placed into the Trust, and that they are entitled to obtain the actual 

transfer documents. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs contend that the Trust is identified on the Notice 

of Trustee Sale, the Assignment of the Deed of Trust, and the Notice of Substitute 

Trustee as the entity authorizing all other parties to take action related to the foreclosure 

of Plaintiffs’ home, and that “it is certainly relevant to ask for proof that the Trust, 

through the proper and legal endorsements of the loan in and out of it, has the authority 

and legal standing to give these parties said powers.” Id. at 5-6. 

 The scope of permissible discovery is defined by Rule 26(b): “[p]arties may 

obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 

Case 2:11-cv-00180-DGC Document 46 Filed 05/02/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The Court therefore must look to Plaintiffs’ claims, 

as set forth in their amended complaint, to determine the proper scope of discovery. 

Plaintiffs’ requests for documentation of the transfer of the note from First Magnus to 

Washington Mutual and subsequent transfers into and out of the Trust are relevant to one 

or more claims in the amended complaint. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the note 

could not have been properly transferred into the Trust because of timing issues, that 

Plaintiffs are unable to determine who currently has legal interest in the note, and that 

Plaintiffs could therefore be subject to competing claims. Doc. 19, ¶¶ 92-94. Defendants 

rely on Hogan and Diamond West to suggest that this claim ultimately will lack merit, but 

the claim is presently part of this case and Rule 26(b) permits discovery of documents 

relevant to claims that are part of this case. 

II. Deborah Brignac’s Authorization. 

 Plaintiffs made a request that Defendants produce “[a]ny and all documents 

demonstrating that Deborah Brignac has authority to execute documents on behalf of any 

entity (ies), particularly but not limited to any powers of attorney provided by Deborah 

Brignac provided by any entity.” Docs. 44 at 2, 45 at 2. Plaintiffs allege in their 

amended complaint that the assignment of the deed of trust from MERS to Defendant 

U.S. Bank as trustee of the mortgage pool is invalid because it was signed by Ms. 

Brignac who was not authorized to act as an officer of MERS. Doc. 19, ¶ 77. Similarly, 

Plaintiffs allege that the substitution of trustee from U.S. Bank to CRC is void because it 

too was executed by Ms. Brignac, and there is no documentation supporting her claim to 

be an attorney and Vice President for U.S. Bank. Id., ¶ 80. Plaintiffs allege that because 

these documents are defective and unenforceable Defendants do not have the right to 

foreclose on their property. Id., ¶¶ 84-85. 

 Defendants argue on the basis of this Court’s ruling in Silving v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, No. CV 11-0676-PHX-DGC, 2012 WL 135989, * 3 (D. Ariz. January 18, 2012), 

that Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the assignment and substitution of trustee 

and that documentation of Ms. Brignac’s authority is therefore irrelevant. Doc. 44 at 3, 

Case 2:11-cv-00180-DGC Document 46 Filed 05/02/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6-7. This argument also goes to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. Allegations regarding 

Ms. Brignac’s lack of authority currently are part of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case, and 

those claims define the permissible scope of discovery under Rule 26(b). Because the 

amended complaint alleges that Ms. Brignac did not have authority to sign the 

assignment on behalf of MERS and the substitution on behalf of U.S. Bank, the Court 

will grant Plaintiffs’ discovery request, but will limit it to Ms. Brignac’s authorizations to 

sign on behalf of these two entities. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall, within 14 days of this order, produce to 

Plaintiffs (1) all documentation of the transfer of the note from First Magnus to 

Washington Mutual and subsequent transfers into and out of the Trust, and (2) all 

documentation of Deborah Brignac’s authority to sign on behalf of MERS and U.S. 

Bank. 

 Dated this 1st day of May, 2012. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-00180-DGC Document 46 Filed 05/02/12 Page 4 of 4