N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VER N ELM ER , Pla i ntiff-C ounte rDe fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt,
v. JPM OR GAN C HASE & C O., a Nat iona l Assoc iat ion; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-C ounte rPla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, FEDER AL HOUSING FINANC E AGENC Y, C onse rvator of the Fe de ra l Nationa l M ortga ge Assoc iation,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntAppe lle e , and M TC FINANC IAL, INC . a nd SUNR ISE R IDGE M ASTER HOM EOW

N ER S ASSOC IATION, C ounte r-De fe nda

nts. No. 15-17407

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01999-GM N-NJK
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

AUG 31 2017 M O LLYC. 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M UELLER , ** Distric t Judge
. Ve rn Elm e r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Fe de ra l Hom e Loa n M ortga ge C orporation a

n d inte rve nor Fe de ra l Housing Fina nc e Age n c y ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we
a ffirm
. Elm e r argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in c o nc luding tha t the Fe de ra l Fore c l osure B ar, 12 U.S.C . § 4617(j)(3), pre e m pts Ne va da R e vise d Statute s § 116.3116, a

nd thus invalida

te s the purporte d e x tinguishme nt of Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re s t in theprope rty

Elm e r purc ha se d through the hom e owne rs a ssoc iation (“ HOA” ) fore c losure sa le
. As we re c e ntly c onc lude d in Be re

zov s k y v . Moniz , No. 16-15066, 2017 W

L 3648519 (9th C ir. Aug. 25, 2017), the Fe de ra l Fore c losure B ar pre e m

p ts the Ne va da

la wto the e xte nt tha

t the Ne va da

la w would pe rm it a fore c losure on a supe rpriority lie n to e xtinguish Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re st, without the

* * The Honora

ble Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2Age nc y ’ s c onse nt, whileFre ddie M a c is unde r the Age nc y ’ s c onse rvatorship. Se e

also Ariz. Dream Ac t C

oal. v . Bre w e r , 757 F.3d 1053, 1063 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Arizona v . Unite d State s , 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012)). 1 The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t the HOA sa le did not e x tinguish Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re st in the d e e d of trust. Elm e r a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting Fre ddie M a c and the A ge nc y ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

use the re we re ge nuine issue s of
m ate ria l fa c t re ga

rding whe the r the Age nc y an d Fre d die M a c posse sse d a n inte re st in the prope rty

at the tim e of the HOA sa le . Elm e r c onte nds tha t Fre ddie M a c did not offe r suffic ie nt e vide nc e of its intere st a nd tha t Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re st wa s
une nforc e a

ble . W e re

je c t both c onte ntions, a s we did in Be re zov sk y . Fre ddie M a c offe re d re lia ble and unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e of its intere st in the p rope rty

on the dat e of the fore c losure . Fre ddie M a c provide d a re c ord from

its

1 C om m unity Assoc iations Institute , am ic us c uria e , a rgue s tha t the Age nc y la c ks sta nding to a sse rt its c la im

re ga rding thepre e m

ptive e ffe c t of 12 U.S.C
. § 4617(j)(3). W e disa gre e . The Age nc y , a s c onse rvator of Fre d die M a c , ha s sta nding to a sse rt c la im s in prote c tion of Fre ddie M a c ’ s prope rty inte re s ts. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) (sta ting tha t the Age nc y suc c e e de d to “ a ll rights, title s, powe rs, a nd privile ge s of [Fre ddie M a c ] ” ). Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re st would be e xtinguishe d if the Ne va da la w we re not pre e m

pte d by 12 U.S.C
. § 4617(j)(3), tha t injury is tra c e a ble to the c o nduc t at issuein this litiga tion, a n d tha t injury would be re dre sse d by a de c ision tha

t the fe de ra l la

w prote c te d a ga i nst the e xtinguishme nt of the i nte re st. Se e Lujan v . De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (c i tations om i tte d). 3inte rna l da

ta ba s e sta ting tha t the loa n’ s “ funding da

te ” wa s Oc tobe r 24, 2005, we ll be fore the Nove m

be r 2012 HOA sa le . Fre ddie M a c ’ s e m p loy e e e xpla i ne d tha

t the
re c o rd indic ate s tha

t Fre d die M a c a c quire d owne rship of theloa n on Oc tobe r 24, 2005, a nd ha s owne d it e ve r sinc e . Elm e r argue s tha t the re c ord c ould m e an
som e thing other tha

n the e m p loy e e ’ s sworn de c la

ration indic ate s , suc h a s tha t Fre ddie M a c gua

rante e d rathe r tha

n owne d the loa

n. Elm e r ha s not, howe ve r, offe re d a ny e vide n c e in support of his a rgum e nt. He ha s the re fore fa ile d to “ do
m ore tha n sim ply show tha

t the re is som e m e ta

phy sic a l doubt a s to the m ate ria l fa c t s.” Matsushita Elec . Indus. C o. v . Ze nith Radio C

orp ., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). B e c a

use Elm e r did not “ c om e forward with ‘ spe c ific fa c ts showing tha t the re is a ge nuine issue for tria l,’ ” sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r. Id. at 587 (quoting Fe d. R . C iv. Proc . 56(e ) (2009) (am e nde d 2010)). Elm e r a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to Fre ddie M a c and the Age nc y be c a use any inte re st Fre d die M a c he ld a t the tim e of the HOA sa le wa s une nforc e a ble . In support of this a

rgum e nt, Elm e r c ite s Fre ddie M a c ’ s fa i lure to re c ord its intere st be fore the HOA sa le . Addre ssing the
sam e argum e nt in Be r e

zov sk y , we c onc lude d tha

t Fre ddie M a c ’ s prope rty

inte re st is
va lid a nd e nforc e a

ble unde r Ne va da

la w e ve n if the re c orde d doc um e nt om its

4Fre ddie M a c ’ s na m e , if the re c orde d be ne fic ia ry of the de e d of trust is a

pa rty
a c ting on Fre ddie M a c ’ s be ha lf. Se e Be re zov s k y , 2017 W L 3648519, a

t *7. Am ic us c uria e C om

m unity Assoc iations Institute

c onte n ds tha

t the Age nc y
c annot de m onstra

te an inte re st in theprope rty be c a use M ortga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra tion Sy ste m s, Inc
. , a s the be ne fic ia ry of the de e d, he ld the prope rty in trust. C AI a sse rts tha

t 12 U.S.C . § 4617(b)(19)(B ) indic ate s tha t any m ortga ge he ld in trust is not Fre ddie M a c ’ s a s se t a nd the re fore tha

t the Age nc y

c ould not ha

ve
suc c e e de d to theinte re st. “ G e ne ra lly , we do not c onside r on a p pe a l a n issue ra ise d only by an am ic u s.” Unite d

State s v . Ge me n te ra , 379 F.3d 596, 607 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Sw an v . Pe te rson , 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th C ir. 1993)) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d); se e also Zango, Inc . v . K aspe rsk y Lab, Inc

. , 568 F.3d 1169, 1177 n.8 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha t “ [a ] n am ic us c uria e ge ne ra l ly c annot ra ise ne w
argum e nts on a

ppe a l,” and tha

t “ argum e nts not ra ise d by a pa rty in a n ope ning brie f are wa ive d.” ) (c i tations omitte d). C AI’ s a rgum e nt a l so fa ils on the m e rits. The pla in la ngua ge of the se c tion
c ite d by C AI prohibits c re d itors from drawing on a sse ts he l d in trust to sa t isfy
c re d itors’ c la im s ; it doe s not ba r the Age nc y

from suc c e e ding to Fre ddie M a c ’ s inte re s t in thea sse ts. Se e 12 U.S.C . § 4617(b)(19)(B )(i). AFFIRM E D.
5