N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : ANDR

EW R ALPH B E LLO, Sr., De

btor, ANDREW

R A LPH B ELLO, Sr., Appe lla

nt, v. C HASE HOM E FINANC E, LLC , Appe lle e . No. 13-60087 B AP No. 11-1541 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Pa ppa s, Jury , a

nd B a son, B ankruptc y

Judge s , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 5, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED N OV 13 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 : FAR R IS and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s a n d TIGAR , *** Distric t Judge . The fa c ts a

n d proc e dura l postureof this c a se are known to the pa rtie s, a nd we do not repe at the m he re . 1 Appe lla nt R a lph B e llo, Sr. se e ks re v e rsa l of the B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pane l ’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r, whic h dism isse d B e llo’ s se c ond a m e nde d c om

pla int with pre

judic e . W e re vie w a m otion to dism

iss de novo, N

aray anan v . British Airw

ay s , 747 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th C ir. 2014), a

n d the de c ision to deny

le ave to a

m e nd for a

buse of disc re t ion, In reW e ste rn State

s W hole sale N atural Gas Antitrust Litig. , 715 F.3d 716, 736 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm . First, a lthough the

B A P did not re a c h the s e grounds, theba nkruptc y c ourt dism isse d thre e o f B e llo’ s c l a im s— fa ilure to pe rfe c t the trust de e d, viola tion of the C a lifornia C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t, a nd viola t ion of thea

utom atic sta y — be c a use B e llo ne ithe r sought for nor wa s gra n te d le av e to a dd thosec la im s unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 15. B e l lo c annot dismiss his failure to e ve n a s k for le ave to a dd ne w c la im s a s a

“ m isha p” or “ te c hnic a lity ” whe re the c ourt ha d a lre a d y dism isse d his c om

pla int twic e and gra

nte d le ave only

to fix de fic ie nc ie s in the

*** The Honora

ble Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion. 1 Appe lle e ’ s m otion to ta ke judic ia l notic e of va

rious publicre c ord doc um e nts is he re by

gran t e d. 2e xisting c om pla i nt. Thus we a ffirm

the B AP on this a lte rnative ground; the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion. S

e e In reW

e s te rn State

s , 715 F.3d a

t 738; se e also Dittman v. C alifornia , 191 F.3d 1020, 1927 n.3 (9th C ir. 1999) (noting our a

bility to a ffirm on a lte rnative grounds). Se c ond, B e llo’ s c la im

tha t proble m s with thesubstitution of truste e inva lida t e d the lie n is ba se le ss. Unde r C a lifornia la w, a substitution of truste e is e ffe c tive from

the tim e it is re c orde d . C a l. C i v. C o de § 2934a (a )(1), (4). And onc e it is re c orde d, the ne w truste e is re troa c tive l y a uthoriz e d “ from

the dat e the substitution [wa s] e xe c ute d.” Id. § 2934a (4)(d). M ore o ve r, e ve n whe re a notic e of de fa ult wa s re c orde d by

som e one who wa s not thetruste e at the tim e , it is only whe re the notic e of sale is re c orde d prior to there c ording of thesubstitution tha t a sa le c an be inva l idate d . Se e Fe rguson v . Av e lo Mortg., LLC , 126 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 586, 594–95 (C t. App. 2011). Third, B e l lo’ s c la im

for a viola tion of the C a lifornia

Hom e owne rs B ill of R ights is raise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. He ne ve r e ve n ple a de d this c l a im . W e will not a ddre ss it. Se e Bac c e i v . Unite d State s , 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th C ir. 2011). Fina lly , be c a

u se a ll of B e llo’ s c la im s fa i l a s a m atte r of la

w, his re que st for de c la ra tory re lie f a lso ne c e ssa

rily fa i ls. S e e 28 U.S.C . § 2201. 3The B AP’ s de c ision is AFFIRM E D .

4