N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GAR Y W . LIAL; M AR QULINN LIAL, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A C ORPOR A TION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16855 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02121-GMNPAL M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Gary W . and M arqulinn Lial a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing the i r dive rsity

a c tion a lle ging sta

te la w c la im s re late d to a

fore c losure . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s 

# FIL ED JAN 29 2016 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). C e rv ante s v . C ountryw ideHome Loans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the Lia l s’ wrongful fore c losure and quie t titlec la im s be c a

use the Lia ls did not alle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the y we re not in de fa

ult on the ir loa

ns a nd tha t de fe nda nts e x e rc ise d the powe r of sa le . Se e Bre liant v . Pre

fe rre d Equitie

s C orp. , 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev . 1996) (pe r c uriam ) (“ In a

quie t titlea c tion, theburde n of proof re sts with the pla intiff to prove title in him se lf.” ); C

ollins v . Union Fe d. Sav . & Loan Ass’n , 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Ne v. 1983) (wrongful fore c losure c la i m re quire s a lle gations tha

t a le nde r e xe rc ise d the powe r of sa le an d fore c lose d upon prope rty whe n no fa ilure of pe rform a nc e e x iste d o n

the pa rt of the borrowe r). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the Lia l s’ c ivil c onspira c y and injunc tive re lie f c la im s a fte r dism issing the unde rly ing c a

use s of a c tion. Se e

, e .g. , Eik e lbe rge r v . Tolotti , 611 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Ne v. 1980) (c onspira c y

a c tion for dam a ge s ge ne ra lly

m ust be ba s e d on a

via ble , inde pe nde nt c a

use of a c tion). The Lia ls’ la c k sta

nding to e nforc e the te rm s of a ny pooling a nd se rvic e a gre e m e nt a

nd the re fore c a

nnot c ha lle nge any

a ssignm e nt into a

se c uritiz e d trust. Se e W ood v . Ge r

mann , 331 P.3d 859, 861-62 (Ne v. 2014) (“ [A] ppe lla

nt, who is ne ithe r a pa

rty nor a n inte nde d

third-pa rty be n e fic ia ry of the PSA, la c ke d sta

nding 1 2 - 1 6 8 5 5 2to c h a lle nge the a ssignm e nt’ s va lidity .” ). W e re j e c t a s without me rit the Lia ls’ c onte ntion tha

t the se c uritiz ation of the ir loa n re nde re d the ir note or de e d of trust fraudule nt. C ontra ry to the Lia ls’ argum e nts unde r Ne va da la w, M ortga ge Ele c tronic Sy ste m , Inc . (“ M ER S” ) wa s prope rly ide ntifie d a s a be ne fic ia

ry in the ir de e d of trust a nd ha d the a

uthority to a ssign its inte

re st. Se e Ede lste in v . Bank of N .Y. Me l lon , 286 P.3d 249, 260 (Nev. 2012) (“ W e . . . hold tha t M ER S is c a

pa ble of be ing a va lid be ne fic ia

ry of a de e d of trust, se

pa rate from its rolea s a

n a g e nt (nom ine e ) for the le nde r . . . . M ER S, a s a va lid be ne fic ia

ry , m ay a ssign its be ne fic ia l inte re st in thede e d of trust to the holde r of the note , at

whic h tim e the doc um e nts a

re re unifie d.” ); se ealso Diaz v. K u ble r C orp. , 785 F.3d 1326, 1329 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ Whe n inte rpre ting sta te la w, we are bound to follow the de c isions of the sta te ’ s highe st c ourt . . . .”(inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Pe te rson v . Highland Music , Inc . , 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th C ir. 1998). AFFIRM E D .

1 2 - 1 6 8 5 5 3