### 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 ground s that the foreclosing bank obtained his mortgage through an invalid assignment

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appea ls Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015No. 14

- 50041 and that it improperly included the mortgage in a securitized trust. For the reasons that follow, w e affirm the district court ’s judgm ent 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 Reg istration Systems, Inc. (MERS) wa s listed as the “nominee” or “beneficiary.” In 2009, MERS transferred Blair’s mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

. The loan was transferred in to a securitized trust, Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006

- 4. Blair’s propert y 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 foreclos ure, 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 jurisdic tion because there was “no reasonable basis for the Court to predict
Blair mi ght 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 lacke d 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: 04/02/2015No. 14

- 50041 dismissed the lawsuit without affording Blair the opportunity to ame nd 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 foreclosu re “ 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 rend ers the assignment voidable only.” Id. at
22 5

– 2 6 (internal quotation mark s omitted)

. Bl air 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 cl osing 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 i t is not the holder of the note. He contends that under Texas law, “transferring the deed of t rust 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 underl ying note .” Morlock, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan

3 Case: 14-50041 Document: 00512991468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2015No. 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 )).
T hird, Blair claims that because the deed of trust did not authorize
MER S to assign the mortgage to Deutsche Bank, the assignment is void. But “w e 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 expla in 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 ‘amp le 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 g rounds on which it granted Deutsche Bank and MERS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. B ecause we agree that Defendants have demonstrated that “there is n o 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: 04/02/2015No. 14

- 50041 its lack of explanation, t he district court’s grounds are apparent from t he 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) (requir ing 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 wo uld not fix that defect. The district court’s dismissal without leave to amend therefore

was not an abuse of discretion.
I V. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

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