T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A C O B W I N D I N G , dbaT op t o B ott om C l eani ng S ervi ce , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. N D E X W E S T , L L C , a s T ru s te e ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16506 D . C . N o. 1: 10 -c v-02 02 6-A W IDLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A nthonyW . I s hi i , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r15, 2013 ** B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a c ob W i ndi ng, dbaT op t o B ott om C l e a ni ng S e rvi c e , appe a l s pr o s e f r om th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s j u d g me n td i s mi s s i n g h i s a c t i o n a l l e g i n g f r au da n do th e rc l a i ms a r i s i n g f r o m f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED OC T 23 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16506 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . Kn i e v e l v . ES PN, 39 3 F . 3d 10 68 , 10 72 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . W e a f

f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed W i nd i ng ’ s c l ai m for dec l ar at ory r el i ef be c aus e W i ndi ng f

a i l e d t o a l l e ge f

a c t s s how i ng tha the he l d al i e n i n as e ni or p o s itio n o f

p r io r ityto d e f

e n d a n ts ’ lie n . See C a l . C i v. C ode § 1214 ( the da t e of r e c o r d in g d e te rm in e s p r io r ityo f lie n s in C a lif

o rn ia ) ; se e al

so O ’Meara v. D eL am ater , 126 P . 2d 671, 672 ( C a l . C t . A pp. 1942) ( “ [ A ] s s i gnm e ntba c k t o the m a ke rof the not e a nd m ort ga ge m e r ge [ s ] the e qui t abl e t i t l e w i th the l e ga l t i t l e a nd e x tin g u is h e [ s ] th e m o rtg a g e .” ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d W i ndi ng’ s c l a i m s f orf r aud a nd cancel l at i on of i nstrum ent s bec ause W i nd i ng fa i l ed t o al l ege f ac t s s ho w i ng that d e f e n d a n ts m is r e p r e s e n te dth e p r io r ityo f th e irlie n . See L a za r v. Su p eri o r C o u rt , 9 0 9 P .2 d9 8 1 , 9 8 4 ( C a l. 1 9 9 6 ) ( e le m e n ts o f f r au du n d e rC a lif

o rn ialaw ) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in g ra n ti n g W ells F ar g o ’s re qu es tfor j ud i ci alno t i ce because the courtprop er l y e xam i ned the re qu es t ed d o c u m e n ts a n dd e te rm in e dth a t th e ira c c u r a c yc o u ldn o t r e a s o n ab lyb e q u e s tio n e d . See F e d. R . E vi d. 201; R i t te rv . H ughes A i rc raf

t C o. , 58 F . 3d 45 4, 45 8 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( st andard of revi ew ).11- 16506 3 T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in g ra n ti n g W ells F ar g o ’s m ot i on t o s tr i ke W i ndi ng’ s c l a i m f orpuni t i ve da m a ge s be c aus e W i ndi ng di d not a lle g e f a c ts d e m o n s tr a tin g m a lic e , o p p r e s s io n , o rf r au d . See C a l . C i v. C ode § 3294 ( r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rp u n itiv e d a m a g e s u n d e rC a lif o rn ialaw ) ; N

urse v. U ni ted States , 2 2 6 F .3 d9 9 6 , 1 0 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s tan d a r do f r e v ie w ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a w a r di ng a tt orne y ’ s f e e s f or W e lls F a r g o ’s s u c c e s s f

u l m o tio n to e x p u n g e th e n o tic e o f lis p e n d e n s . See C a l. C i v. P r oc . C ode § 405. 38 ( di r e c t i ng the a w a r d of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s t o apr e va i l i ng pa rtyon am ot i on c onc e rni ng e xpunge m e ntunl e s s the pa rtyoppos i ng the m ot i on ac t ed w i th sub st ant i alj ust i fi ca t i on or other c i rc um st ance s m ake the aw ar d u nj ust ); H em m i ngs v . T

i dym an ’s , Inc. , 285 F . 3d 1174, 1200 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( s t a nda r d of r e v ie w ) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the po st -j ud gm entaw ar d o f att orney’ s f ee s f ile do n N o v e m b e r1 , 2 0 1 1 . Se e C ul i nar y& Se rv . E m

ps . U ni on, A F L - C IO L oc al 55 5 v. H aw . E m p. B enef i t A dm i n. , Inc. , 688 F . 2d 1228, 1232 ( 9th C i r . 1982) (“ W here no no t i ce of appeal fr om a post -j ud gm entorder aw ar di ng att orneys ’ fe es is f ile d , th e c o u rt o f

ap p e a ls la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e o r d e r .” ) .11- 16506 4 W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the ope ni ng br i e f

, ora r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). W in d in g ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e w a s d e n ie de f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l is u n p e r s u a s iv e . See N

i chol son v. R ushen , 76 7 F . 2d 14 26 , 14 27 (9th C i r. 19 85 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( “ G e ne r a l l y , apl a i nt i f f i n ac i vi l c a s e ha s no r i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l.” ) . W i ndi ng’ s m ot i on f

orl e a ve t o f

i l e a n ove r s i z e d r e pl ybr i e f i s gr a nt e d, a nd w e in s tru c t th e C le rkto f ile th e r e p lyb r ie f

s u b m itte do n S e p te m b e r4 , 2 0 1 2 . AF F I RME D.