N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC REGISTR

ATION SYSTEM S, INC ., Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GAR Y M E RLE KOEPPEL, a s a n individual a

nd a s Truste e for the Koe ppe l Fam ily Trust; EM M A K. KOEPPEL, a s a n individual a

nd a s Truste e for the Koe ppe l Fam ily Trust, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts,
and NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE LLC .; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts. No. 20-15640 D.C . No. 5:18-c v-03443-EJD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED SEP 23 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Subm itte d Se pte m be r 1, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Gary and Em m a Koe p pe l a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt's orde r granting M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra

t ion Sy ste m

Inc .’ s (M ER S) m otion for judgme nt on the ple a dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. The Koe ppe ls sought a

nd re c e ive d a sta

te c ourt quie t title judgm e n t without
nam ing M ER S, de spite knowing of M ER S’ s a lle ge d inte re st in theprope rty . M ER S c ha lle nge d the q

u ie t titlejudgm e nt in this ac tion. Thedistric t c ourt ha d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1332(a ). The Rook e r-Fe l dman doc trine did not de

prive the distric t c ourt of jurisdic tion be c a u se M E R S wa s not a pa rty to the sta t e c ourt quie t titlea c tion. Se e Lanc e v . De nnis , 546 U.S. 459, 464–66 (2006). The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t M ER S ha d sta

nding to bring this suit. Pla intiffs se e king re lie f in fe de ra l c ourt m ust e sta blish thethre e e le m e n ts tha t
c onstitute the “ irre duc ible c onstitutiona l m inim um ” of Artic l e III sta

nding, na m e ly , that the y have (1) suffe re d a

n injury in fa c t, (2) tha

t is fa irly tra c e a ble to the
c ha lle nge d c onduc t of the de fe n da nt, a nd (3) tha t is like ly to be re dre s se d

by a

* * The pa

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

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

ble judic ia l de c ision. Lujan v . De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The quie t titlejudgm e nt c onstitute s a n injury in fa c t, whic h is dire c tly tra c e a ble to the Koe ppe ls’ fa ilure to na m e M ER S, and is re m e dia ble through a

n orde r de c la

ring the quie t

title judgm e nt void. It would m ake little se nse to e xc use the Koe p pe ls’ fa ilure to na m e M ER S a s
a de fe nda nt sim ply be c a use the y disputethe va lidity

of the inte re sts a s se rte d

by M ER S, whic h form

the ba sis for its sta

nding to sue . M ore o v e r, the Koe ppe ls’
argum e nt tha

t M ER S m

ust show tha

t it wa s a n a ge n t of the ne w holde r of the note to de m onstra

te sta n ding is una

va iling. TheKoe ppe ls a gre e d in signing the de e d of trust tha t M ER S’ position a

nd a c c om p any i ng rights would c ontinue to C PM ’ s
a ssigns a n d suc c e ssors a

nd tha t the note c ould be sold without prior notic e to the Koe ppe ls. Inde e d, C a lifornia c ourts ha v e a pprovingly

c i te d opinions re

je c ting
argum e nts tha

t M ER S lost its a

uthority be c a use of the sa le of the note from one le nde r to a

nothe r. Se e C

ourtois v . Mortgage Ele c . Re gistration Sy

s., Inc
. , D078198, 2021 W L 2674826, a

t *5 (C a l
. C t. App. June30, 2021) (c o lle c ting c a s e s). The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding a s a m atte r of la

w tha t the Koe ppe ls obta ine d the quie t titlejudgm e n t in viola tion of M ER S’ s rights under
se c t ion 762.010 of the

C a lifornia

C ode of C ivil Proc e dure , a nd gra nting judgme nt on the ple a dings to M ER S. The de e d of trust on the prope rty , whic h wa s signe d by
3Gary

and Em m a Koe p pe l a

n d prope rly re c orde d, de signa

te s M ER S a s the nom ine e of the le n de r and the le nde r’ s suc c e ssors a nd a s the be ne fic i ary

unde r the de e d of trust. B y e xe c uting thede e d

of trust, theKoe ppe ls a gre e d tha t M ER S ha d the
a uthority to initia t e fore c losure proc e e dings on the prope rty . Se e C

alv o v . HSBC Bank USA, N
. A. , 130 C a l
. R

ptr. 3d 815 (C a l C t. App. 2011); Gome s v . C ountryw i de HomeLoans, Inc
. , 121 C a l. R ptr. 3d 819 (C a l C t. App. 2011). There fore , M ER S ha d a n a dve rse c la im a g a inst theprope rty , an d the Koe ppe l s we re re q uire d to na

m e M ER S a s a

de fe nda nt in thequie t titlea c tion. Se e C a l. C iv. Proc
. C ode §§ 760.010(a ), 762.060. The m e re fa c t tha

t a quie t titlejudgm e nt only binds those

nam e d in the judgm e nt is no e xc use for the Koe ppe l s’ fa ilure to na m e M E R S. Wh ile the judgm e nt in a

quie t titlea c tion “ doe s not a ffe c t a c la im in the prope rty

. . . of a ny pe rson who wa s not a

pa rty ,” fa iling to inc lude an indispe nsa ble pa rty “ would le ave in doubt the

e nforc e a b ility of the de e d

of trust a nd c re ate the pote ntia l for
c onfusion a

nd c onflic ting de te rm inations.” Pate rra v . Hanse n , 279 C a l. R ptr. 3d 77, 85, 100 (C a l. C t. App. 2021). The Koe ppe ls’ c ounte rc la im s we re prope rly dism isse d. The distric t

c ourt
c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t C a lifornia

la w doe s not pe rm i t pre e m

ptive fore c losure

4suits. Se e Gome s , 192 C a l. App. 4th a

t 1154. W

hile the Koe ppe ls c onte nd this is not a fore c losure suit, this is a

bout thepowe r to fore c lose . M E R S sue d to void the quie t titlejudgm e n t a

nd ha ve the de e d of trust re insta te d ba se d on its a dve rse
c la im

— its powe r to fore c lose . “ [N] owhe re doe s the [nonjudic ia l fore c losure ] sta tute provide for a

judic i a l a c tion to de te rm ine whe the r the pe rson initia ting the fore c losure proc e s s is inde e d a uthoriz e d a

nd [C a lifornia

c ourts] se e no ground for im ply ing suc h a

n a c tion.” Id. at

1155. M o re ove r, C a lifornia la w doe s not re quire a fore c losing pa

rty to produc e the origina l note . No a m ount of a

m e nding the
c om pla i nt c ould c ha

nge the funda

m e nta l c ha

ra c te r of the c ounte rc la im s. The distric t c o urt, the re fore , c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the Koe p p e ls’ suit should be dism isse d. AFFIRM E D.

5