N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM PAUL KULANI W EGESEND; B ARB AR

A JEAN W E GESEND, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. ENVISION LENDING GR OUP, INC .; SEC UR ITY NATIONAL M OR TGAGE C OM PANY; SEC UR ITY NATIONAL LIFE INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY; EM C M OR TGAGE C ORPOR ATION; JOHN DOES, 1-50; JANE DOES, 1-50; DOE PAR TNER SHIPS, 1-50; DOE C ORPOR

ATIONS, 1-50; DOE ENTITIES, 1-50; DOE GOVER

NM ENTAL UNITS, 1-50, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16048 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00493-DKW -KSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii De rric k Ka

ha la W atson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2018 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii 

# FIL ED
FEB 16 2018 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).B e fore : O’ SC A N NLAIN, C L IFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts M r. and M rs. W e ge s e nd a sse rt tha t the re is fe de ra l
c ourt jurisdic tion ba se d on dive rsity . Dive rsity jurisdic t ion re quire s tha

t the am ount in c o ntrove rsy

e xc e e d $75,000. 28 U.S.C . § 1332. TheW e ge se nds c onte nd tha t the
am ount in c ontrove rsy

is the va lue of e ithe r the re le va nt prope rty or the m ortga ge s
atta c h e d to it, be c a

u se this c a s e is a

quie t titlec a se . This c a se is not a

quie t titlec a se , howe ve r. The c o m pla int did not se e k to
e xtinguish the m ortga ge s or a ny c la im to the prope rty ba se d on the m ortga ge . The litiga tion, we re it to proc e e d, would a t m ost re l ie ve the W e ge se n ds of the ir profe s se d unc e rta inty

a s to theide ntity

of the ir le n de rs a

nd the holde rs of the
m ortga ge s on theprope rty . This re lie f “ a ppe ar[s] to be inta

ngible , spe c ulative , a

nd la c k[s] the c a

p a bility of be ing tra

nsla te d into m one ta

ry va l ue .” J ac k son v . Am. Bar Ass'n , 538 F.2d 829, 831 (9th C ir. 1976) (pe r c uriam ) (c ita tions omitte d). Eve n if that re l ie f c ould be tra

nsla te d into a m one ta ry va lue , the re is no re a son to be lie ve the m one ta

ry va lue would e x c e e d $75,000. Our re c e nt opinion in C

orral v

. Se le c t Portfolio Se rv ic ing, Inc

. provide s furthe r guida

nc e . 878 F.3d 770 (9th C ir. 2017). Although “ [w] he n a pla intiff se e ks to quie t titleor pe rm ane ntly e njoin fore c losure , the obje c t of the litiga tion is the

2owne rship of theprope rty ,” tha t is not the

c a se whe n “ the obje c t

of the litiga

tion is only a te m pora ry injunc tion.” Id. at 776. In suc h a c i rc um sta

nc e , “ the te st for de te rm i ning theam ount in c ontrove rsy is the pe c unia

ry re sult to e ithe r party

whic h the j udgm e nt would dire c tly produc e .” Id. at 775 (quoting In re Ford Motor C o./C itibank (S. Dak o ta), N .A. , 264 F.3d 952, 958 (9th C ir. 2001)). C e ntra l to our
re a s oning wa s re c ognition tha t “ e ve n if Appe lla

nts we re to suc c e e d

on this la wsuit, the y would not be

a ble to re ta in posse ssion a

n d owne rship of the i r Prope rty without pa

y ing off the i r de bt.” Id. at 776. The re a soning in C

o rral a pplie s he re . Eve n if the W e ge se nds we re
suc c e ssful in the ir la

wsuit, the y

would still ne e d to pa

y off the re m a ining debt. M ore o ve r, the c om

pla int doe s not a lle ge tha

t the de fe nda

nts a re m aking c om

pe ting
c la im s to them ortga ge , a

nd “ t h e De fe nda

nts a gre e tha

t the re is no dispute

a s to the role s of e a c h De fe nda

nt e nt ity .” W

e ge se nd v . Env ision Le nding Grp., Inc

. , No. 13-00493, 2014 W

L 1745340, a

t *2 (D. Ha

w. Apr. 30, 2014). Ne i the r the va lue of the p rope rty

nor the am ount of inde

bte dne ss is a

prope r m e a s ure of the ha rm to the de fe nda nts. Se e C

orral , 878 F.3d a

t 775-76. As suc h, the prope rty is not the obje c t of litiga tion, a n d the am o unt in c ontrove rsy is not gre at e r tha

n $75,000. The
re quire m e nts for dive rsity jurisdic tion we re not m e t. AFFIRM E D.
3