IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50041

Summary Calendar

BRUCE BLAIR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for 

NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-4; MERSCORP HOLDINGS, 

INCORPORATED; JUANITA STRICKLAND; NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, 

INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CV-759

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bruce Blair challenges the foreclosure of his property on the grounds

that the foreclosing bank obtained his mortgage through an invalid assignment 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50041

and that it improperly included the mortgage in a securitized trust. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s judgment for Defendants. 

I.

Bruce Blair purchased a property in Austin in 2006 with $161,600 in 

financing from a mortgage lender. The loan was secured with a deed of trust 

in favor of Novastar Mortgage Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration 

Systems, Inc. (MERS) was listed as the “nominee” or “beneficiary.” In 2009, 

MERS transferred Blair’s mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company. The loan was transferred into a securitized trust, Novastar 

Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-4. 

Blair’s property was foreclosed upon by Deutsche Bank in 2012 because 

Blair was delinquent on his loan. He brought this lawsuit in state court, 

asserting various causes of action, including quiet title, breach of contract, 

wrongful foreclosure, Texas Debt Collection Act violations, Texas Deceptive 

Trade Practices Act violations, and filing fraudulent liens. Deutsche Bank 

removed the case to federal court. Blair moved to remand, and Defendants 

moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The district court denied Blair’s motion to remand, which argued that 

the presence of a nondiverse Defendant—the substitute trustee, Juanita 

Strickland—defeated diversity jurisdiction. The district court found that 

Strickland was improperly joined for the purpose of defeating diversity 

jurisdiction because there was “no reasonable basis for the Court to predict 

Blair might prevail against Strickland.” The court concluded that the claims 

against Strickland failed because Blair had not alleged Strickland’s interest in 

the property and Blair lacked standing to challenge the assignment of his 

mortgage. The court also granted Deutsche Bank and MERS’s motion for 

judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Blair lacked standing. It 

2

 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50041

dismissed the lawsuit without affording Blair the opportunity to amend his 

pleadings. Blair appeals. 

II.

Blair challenges the district court’s ruling that he lacks standing to 

contest the assignment of his mortgage to Deutsche Bank. We addressed a 

similar issue in Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 735 F.3d 220, 225 

(5th Cir. 2013). In that case, as in this one, homeowners challenged the 

assignment of their mortgage and its inclusion in a trust in violation of the 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). We noted that while an obligor may 

defend against foreclosure “on any ground which renders the assignment void,” 

an obligor has no standing to challenge an assignee’s efforts to enforce an 

obligation on “any ground which renders the assignment voidable only.” Id. at

225–26 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Blair argues that the assignment is void, and not merely voidable, on 

three grounds. First, he notes that his mortgage was transferred into a trust 

after the trust’s closing date, in violation of its PSA. He contends that New 

York trust law governs the PSA, and that it renders that assignment void, not 

merely voidable. New York courts however, “have treated ultra vires actions 

by trustees as voidable and therefore susceptible of ratification.” Svoboda v. 

Bank of Am., N.A., 571 F. App’x 270, 273 (5th Cir. 2014) (collecting New York 

cases), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 679 (2014). 

Second, Blair argues that Deutsche Bank cannot foreclose because it is 

not the holder of the note. He contends that under Texas law, “transferring 

the deed of trust without the note is a nullity.” We have held, however, that 

third parties like Deutsche Bank do “not need to hold the note to foreclose” and 

have “recognized MERS’s authority to assign its rights in the deed of trust 

without also assigning the underlying note.” Morlock, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan 

3

 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50041

Chase Bank, N.A., 587 F. App’x 86, 88 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Martins v. BAC 

Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2013)).

Third, Blair claims that because the deed of trust did not authorize 

MERS to assign the mortgage to Deutsche Bank, the assignment is void. But 

“we have repeatedly upheld MERS’ assignment of mortgages to other entities” 

on the ground that MERS “qualifies as a mortgagee” under Texas law. Van 

Duzer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 582 F. App’x 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Martins, 722 F.3d at 255). We therefore reject Blair’s argument that the 

district court erred by holding that he lacks standing to challenge the 

assignment of his mortgage.1

III.

Finally, Blair argues that the dismissal of his case without leave to 

amend was an abuse of discretion because he was not given the opportunity to 

meet the more stringent federal pleading requirements after his case was 

removed. He also notes that the district court failed to explain its decision not 

to grant leave to amend. 

“Where, as in the present case, the district court provides no explanation 

for denying leave to amend, we affirm only where the reason for the denial is 

‘readily apparent’ . . . [and] the record reflects ‘ample and obvious grounds for 

denying leave to amend.’” Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG,

688 F.3d 214, 232 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite 

1 Blair’s Notice of Appeal states his intent to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to remand. His appellate brief, however, only discusses the motion to remand in the 

standard of review section, without challenging the substance of the district court’s ruling. 

The district court denied Blair’s motion to remand on the same grounds on which it granted 

Deutsche Bank and MERS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because we agree that 

Defendants have demonstrated that “there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff 

against” Strickland, denial of Blair’s motion to remand was appropriate. See Smallwood v. 

Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding improper joinder because

plaintiff was unable to establish cause of action against nondiverse party).

4

 

 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50041

its lack of explanation, the district court’s grounds are apparent from the 

record. Blair “made only a general request for leave to amend and did not 

identify” how an amendment would cure the defects in his complaint. See id. 

Nor did Blair provide the district court with a copy of his proposed amended 

pleading. See W.D. Tex. R. CV-7(b) (“When a motion for leave to file a pleading, 

motion, or other submission is required, an executed copy of the proposed 

pleading, motion, or other submission shall be filed as an exhibit to the motion 

for leave.”); Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a) (requiring leave of the court or the opposing 

party’s written consent to amend a pleading more than 21 days after the 

opposing party’s responsive pleading). Finally, well-established law prevents 

Blair from establishing standing, and more specific allegations would not fix 

that defect. The district court’s dismissal without leave to amend therefore 

was not an abuse of discretion.

IV.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

5

 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2015