Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01148/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01148-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy cases and proceedings under title 11

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE PATRICE BARNES MARKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, and DOES

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants - Appellees. /

No. C 10-01148 WHA

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

Appellant Leslie Marks, representing herself, appeals a bankruptcy court decision

dismissing her Chapter 13 bankruptcy action. Appellant alleged many of the same issues in her

appeal of her bankruptcy adversary proceeding, and the bankruptcy court’s dismissal was

affirmed for many of the same reasons herein. See Marks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 10-

00203 WHA, 2010 WL 3069248 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010). For all the reasons that follow, the

bankruptcy court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

The appeal centers on allegations that appellee and other defendants misled appellant into

accepting a financially burdensome mortgage, and that this fraud should have prevented the

Chapter 13 dismissal. In 2005 appellant decided to modify her home loan with a subsidiary of

New Century Mortgage Corporation. Appellant brought an action against New Century and its

employee in 2006. Appellant won a default judgment against the employee, but the action was

Case 3:10-cv-01148-WHA Document 31 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

stayed as to New Century when it filed for bankruptcy in March 2007. On or around the day of

the bankruptcy filing, New Century transferred appellant’s loan to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,

and apparently DB Structured Products, Inc. Appellant subsequently brought suit against Ocwen

and DB as successors in interest on the New Century home loan, Marks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,

LLC, No. C 07-02133-SI (N.D. Cal. filed April 17, 2007). The Honorable Judge Susan Illston

dismissed the action with prejudice, and the case was closed in April 2009. Appellant did not

appeal the district court decision. Instead, three months later, appellant filed for Chapter 13

bankruptcy and instituted an adversary proceeding against Ocwen in bankruptcy court. Both of

these actions were dismissed.

A district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s decision applying the same standard of

review used by circuit courts reviewing district court decisions. See Ford v. Baroff (In re Baroff),

105 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s factual

findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Diamant v. Kasparian (In re

Southern Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999).

As an initial matter, all of the appellant’s appeals are untimely. Appellant appeals two

orders of the bankruptcy court: (1) the order dismissing the Chapter 13 bankruptcy action with a

180 day refiling bar signed on January 19, 2010, and (2) the order granting relief from the

automatic stay signed on January 26, 2010 (Br. 11). Both of these orders were also appealed

before this Court in the aforementioned case. Under FRBP 8002, a litigant in bankruptcy court

has 14 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal as to that order or

judgment. Plaintiff’s appeal was noticed 16 days after the bankruptcy court entered its order

granting relief from the automatic stay and 23 days after the dismissal of the Chapter 13 action. 

Furthermore, all of the issues that appellant argues on appeal are properly barred from

readjudication under the doctrine of res judicata. In this appeal, appellant’s main argument is that

appellee did not have standing to appear in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy action because it was not a

legitimate creditor. Appellant argues that: (1) appellee wrongfully acquired its interest in

appellant’s loan from New Century, (2) appellee is merely a “debt collector” and not a “creditor”

and so it wrongfully transferred its interest to GreenTree, LLC, (3) appellee violated the Perata

Case 3:10-cv-01148-WHA Document 31 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Mortgage Relief Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, and (4) appellee improperly assigned the loan

pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2932.5. Each of these claims either was or could have

been litigated in appellant’s district court action against appellee, because they are based on “the

same transactional nucleus of facts.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l

Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 

First, the claims that appellee wrongfully acquired the appellant’s home loan from New

Century and was not a legitimate “creditor” formed the basis of her district court action against

appellee. Second, the Perata Mortgage Relief Act governs how mortgage holders should contact

debtors in default and provide options to avoid foreclosure; appellant does not specify which

portion of the Act appellee violated, and indeed many sections are not enforceable once the debtor

engages in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Regardless, claims that appellee did not properly notify or

service appellant’s loan were litigated in the district court action, and specific violations of the

Perata Act should have been claimed at that time. Finally, appellant argues that Section 2932.5

requires that the transfer of a mortgage be publically recorded before a foreclosure sale, and so

the automatic stay should be reinstated against GreenTree. As explained in a previous order, the

automatic stay was proper, and GreenTree is not a party to this appeal and was not even served

(Dkt. No. 27). Furthermore, there has not yet been a foreclosure sale, and appellant’s loan is

secured by a deed of trust, not a mortgage, which is not covered by this statute.

Appellant’s claims were untimely and not properly appealed. Moreover, they are all

barred by res judicata, as explained in the dismissal of her appeal of the adversary proceeding. 

Furthermore, even if her appeal was not barred by these two factors, it would still fail on the

merits. For all of these reasons, both individually and collectively, the bankruptcy court’s

dismissal of the Chapter 13 action and the order vacating the automatic stay are AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01148-WHA Document 31 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 3