N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAN M . RENFR O E ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITIB A NK, NA, a s truste e of NR Z Pa ssThrough Trust VI; et a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35074 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-00194-SM J
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

April 8, 2019 * * Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Ja n M . R e nfroe a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r
m otion to re m and a

n d the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s C itiba

nk, N.A. (C itiba

nk) a nd M ortga ge Ele c tronic 

# FIL ED APR 11 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R e gistra

tion Sy ste m s, Inc
. (M ER S) (c olle c t ive ly , De fe nda nts). 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing R e nfroe ’ s m otion to re m and a nd a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting
sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

n ts. 2 1. M otion to Re m and. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s “ [d] e n ia l of a
m otion to re m and a c a s e to sta te c ourt for la c k of re m ova l jurisdic tion[.] ” Unite d C omp. Sy s., Inc . v . AT & T C

orp. , 298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th C ir. 2002). C a se s
re m ove d on the ba sis of dive rsity jurisdic t ion m

ust pre se nt pa

rtie s whose
c itiz e nship is c om

p le te ly dive rse and c onte st a

n am o unt gre ate r tha

n $75,000. 28 U.S.C . § 1332(a). “ [E] ve n if a c a se we re not re m ova

ble at the outse t,” it m ay

be

“ re nde re d re m ova

ble by virtue of a

c ha nge in the pa

rtie s[.] ” Harris v . Bank

e rs Life & C as. C o. , 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th C ir. 2005). W e “ disre ga rd nom ina l or form a l pa rtie s ” for purpose s of de te rm i ning dive rsity jurisdic tion. N

av arro Sav . Ass’n v
. Le e , 446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980). B e fore De fe nda

nts re m ove d this c a se to fe de ra l c ourt, R e nfroe and De fe nda nt Qua lity Loa n Se rvic e C o rporation of W a shington (QLS) e nte re d into a

“ Stipula tion of Nonpa

rtic ipation a s to [QLS] ” tha t sta t e d tha t R e nfroe “ is not a

nd

1 As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . 2 B e c a

use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of R e n froe ’ s m otion to re m and, we de ny

R e nfroe ’ s m otion for a

ttorne y s fe e s, dkt. # 42. 2sha l l not bese e king a ny m one ta ry dam a ge s a ga inst [QLS] at this time and the re fore will re v ise the c o m pla int in this m

atte r to na m e [QLS] a s a

‘ Nom i na l De fe nda nt’ inste a d of a s a

De fe nda nt[.] ” QLS wa s the re a fte r a nom ina l pa

rty and the c a se wa s re nde re d re m ova ble be c a use the re m a ining pa

rtie s we re a ll c itiz e ns of diffe re nt sta

te s. The distric t

c ourt did not err in de ny ing R e nfroe ’ s m o tion to
re m and, a nd QLS ha s re m a ine d a

nom ina l de fe n da

nt throughout the

a c tion. 2. M otion for Sum

m ary Judgm e n t. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum

m ary judgm e nt. S. C

a. Darts Ass’n v. Zaffina , 762 F.3d 921, 925 (9th C i r. 2014). R e nfroe argue s tha t the distric t c ourt should ha v e de nie d De fe nda nts’ m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e n t on he r W a shington De e d of Trust Ac t, W a sh. R e v. C ode §§ 61.24 e t se q. , (DTA) c la i m s be c a use ge n uine issue s of
m ate ria l fa c t e x ist pe rta ining to sta tutory c o m plia nc e . W e a g re e with the distric t
c ourt tha t B ank of Am e ric a ’ s notic e of de fa u lt c om plie d with sta

tutory
re quire m e nts. Se e W a s h. R e v. C ode § 61.24.030(8)(l). W e a lso a gre e that C itiba nk’ s be ne fic ia

ry de c la ra tion a c c om

pa ny ing the notic e of sa le c om plie d with sta tutory la w. Se e id. § 61.24.030(7)(a). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt to De fe n da

nts on Re nfroe ’ s DTA c la im s. R e nfroe ne xt a sse rts tha

t the distric t

c ourt should ha

ve de nie d De fe nda nts’
m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R e nfroe ’ s W a shington C onsum e r Prote c tion

3Ac t, W a sh. R e v. C ode §§ 3 1.04 e t se q ., (C PA) c la im s . To e s ta blish a priva

t e c la im unde r the C PA, a

pla intiff m

ust e sta blish: (1) “ an unfa ir or de c e ptive a c t or pra c tic e ;” (2) tha

t “ o c c urre d in thec onduc t of tra de or c om m e rc e ;” (3) an im

pa c t on the public inte re s t; (4) injury to the pla intiff in his or he r busine ss or prope rty ;
and (5) a c a usa l link be twe e n the unfa ir or de c e ptive a c t an d the injury

suffe re d. Hangman Ridge

Training Stable

s, Inc . v . Safe c o Title Ins. C o. , 719 P.2d 531, 535–39 (W a sh. 1986) (e n ba nc ). The fa ilure to e sta

blish e ve n one of the se
e le m e nts is fa

ta l to a pla intiff’ s c la im
. Id. at 539. Turning to the la st e l e m e nt, R e nfroe ’ s C PA c la im s a ga inst C itiba nk a nd M ER S fa il be c a

use R e nfroe doe s not
a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to e sta b lish tha t she would not ha

ve suffe re d a

n injury but for C itiba nk’ s or M E R S’ s a lle ge d ly unfa ir or de c e ptive a c t. Se e Bav and v . One W e st Bank , FSB , 385 P.3d 233, 248–49 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2016)

. W e a ffirm the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

nts on Re nfroe ’ s C PA c la im s. R e nfroe a l so c onte nds tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt to De fe n da

n t s on R e nfroe ’ s quie t titlea c tion be c a use the fore c losure wa s untim e l y unde r W a shington la

w . “ [A] n a c tion to e nforc e the obliga tion of a pa rty to pa y a note pa y a ble at a de finite tim e m

u st be c om

m e nc e d within six ye ars a fte r . . . the a c c e l e ra te d

due date .” W a sh. R e v. C ode § 62A.3-118(a). The distric t c ourt
a ssum e d tha t the July 16, 2009 Notic e of Inte nt to Ac c e le rate in fa c t ope rate d to
4a c c e le ra te the de bt. R e ga rdle ss of whe the r or not the July 2009 Notic e a c c e le rate d the d e bt, fore c losure wa s tim e l y be c a use fore c losure proc e e dings c o m m e nc e d on M ay 9, 2014 whe n B ank of Am e ric a issue d the notic e of de fa ult. Se e Edmundson
v . Bank of Ame ric a , 378 P.3d 272, 277 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2016) (indic ating tha t “ a ll that is re quire d” to c om

m e nc e a fore c losure proc e e ding within the six-y e ar pe riod of the sta tute of lim ita

tions is to issue a

notic e of de fa

ult). W e a ffirm

the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

nts on Re nfroe ’ s quie t title
c la im
. AFFIRM E D

5