N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LAR R Y B R OW N, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A.; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-55731 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-02009-TJH-SP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Te rry J. Ha tte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEIN, * * Distric t Judge
. Larry B rown a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of his c a se for la c k of sta nding, a nd the c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t a c e rta in le tte r (the “ Vic ta

Le tte r” ) wa s 

# FIL ED AUG 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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. ** The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.not prote c te d by the attorne y –c lie nt privile ge or work-produc t privile ge . W e
a ffirm
. 1. B rown la c ks sta

n ding to litiga

te any of his c la im s. B rown is not a m ortga gor
or an attorne y . Ye t, he sue s num e rous m ortga ge e s (“ Appe lle e s” ), c la im ing he
re pre se nts m ore tha

n one thousa

nd disc onte nte d m ortga gors. B e c a u se B rown
c annot re pre se n t the m ortga gors a s a n attorne y , his sta

nding depe nds on whe the r the m ortga gors a ssigne d him the ir c la im s. The distric t c ourt found tha t B rown la c ke d sta nding for two re a sons: (1) B rown did not dem o nstra te that the
a ssignm e nt of RIC O c la i m s wa s e xpre ss, a nd (2) B rown did not dem onstra te tha t he a c quire d a

n inte re st in e a c h m ortga gor’ s prope rty to pe rm it him

to litiga te the
c la im s tha

t se e k an inte re st in re a l prope rty . W e ne e d not pa ss judgm e n t

on the distric t c o urt’ s findings, be c a use “ [w] e m ay

a ffirm on a ny prope r ground supporte d by the re c ord.” N

ov ak v . Unite d State s , 795 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th C ir. 2015).

“ The pa rty invoking fe de ra l jurisdic tion be ars the burde n of e sta blishing [the
e le m e nts of sta

nding] .” Lujan v . De

fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Ge ne ra lly , “ to sa

tisfy Artic le III’ s sta

nding re q uire m e n t s, a

pla intiff m

ust show . . . it ha s suffe re d a

n ‘ injury in fa c t .’ ” Frie nds of the

Earth, Inc

. v . Laidlaw

Env tl. Se rv s. (TOC ), Inc

. , 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). Howe ve r, an a ssigne e
—

who “ sta nds in the shoe s of its a ssignors,” Spine de x Phy sic al The rapy

USA Inc . v . Unite d
2He althc a reof Ariz., Inc

. , 770 F.3d 1282, 1291 (9th C ir. 2014)— m ay m e e t the
re quire m e nts of sta

nding by showing tha

t he re c e ive d a

n a ssignm e nt of c la im s, Sprint C ommc ’ns C

o. v . APC C

Se rv s., Inc
. , 554 U.S. 269, 274–75 (2008). Although the Ninth C irc uit doe s not re q uire “ t e rm s of a

rt . . . for a

va lid
a ssignm e nt,” Unite d State s e x re l. K e lly v . Boe ing C

o. , 9 F.3d 743, 748 (9th C ir. 1993), the a ssigne e m

ust provideproof tha

t a n a ssignm e nt oc c urre d. “ [G] e ne ra l
c ontra c t princ iple s dic t a te tha t to prove an e ffe c t ive a ssignm e nt, the a ssigne e m ust
c om e forth with e v i de nc e tha t the a ssignor m e ant to a ssign rights a nd obliga tions unde r the c ontra c ts.” Britton v . C o-op Bank

ing Grp. , 4 F.3d 742, 746 (9th C ir. 1993) (c iting R e sta

te m e nt (Se c ond) of C o n tra c ts §§ 317(1), 324 (1981)). B e c a use a
c ourt’ s subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion turns on whethe r the pla intiff ha s sta nding, the pla i ntiff m

ust “pre se nt a ffida

vits or a ny othe r e vide nc e ne c e ssa

ry to sa tisfy its burde n of e sta blishing tha

t the c ourt, in fa c t, posse sse s subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion” if the de fe nda

nt m ove s to dismi ss on tha t ba sis. St. C

lair v . C ity of C hic o , 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th C ir. 1989); s e e also W hite v . Le e , 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th C ir. 2000) (noting tha

t, “ [w] ith a

fa c tua l R ule 12(b)(1) atta c k, . . . a

c ourt m ay

look be y ond the c om

pla int” and “ ne e d not pre sum e the truthfulne ss of the pla i ntiffs’
a lle gations” ).

3B rown’ s Se c ond Am e nde d C om pla int, there le va

nt doc um e nt, fa ils to provide any

proof tha t B rown wa s a ssigne d c la im s by the m ore -tha

n-one -thousa

nd
m ortga gors he purports to repre se nt. The e ntire la ngua ge of a ssignm e n t in theSAC
re a d s a s follows. Pla intiff Larry B rown (he re ina fte r, “ Pla intiff” ) b rings this A c tion a s the a ssigne e of Life Save rs C onc e pts Assoc iatio n, Inc ., a N orth C arolina c orporation, and c e rta in a ffilia te s the re of (c olle c tive l y he re ina fte r, “ Life Save rs” ). Life Save rs, in te rm , is the a ssig n e e of the c la im s of the individuals liste d on Exhibi t “ A” atta c he d he re t o (c o lle c tive ly he re ina fte r, the “ Assignors” ), and it is sole l y in the c a pa c ity of a ssigne e of the re spe c tive Assignors tha t Pla intiff a

ppe ars he re in. B rown did not alle g e any fa c t s— or provide any

e xhibits with his SAC

— to support his ba ld a sse rtion. Nor did B rown oppose Appe lle e s’ M otion to Dism iss on the ba sis of R ule 12(b)(1) with e vide nc e , fa c ts, or e xhibits tha t would te nd to support his sta t e m e nt. B rown’ s sta

nding is e ntire l y

de pe nde nt on a

va lid a s signm e nt, the re fore B rown’ s fa ilure to provide proof of suc h is fa t a l to all of his c la im s. 1 2. B rown fa ile d to show tha t the Show C a

use M otion wa s im

prope rly grante d. Although the distric t c ourt m ay have a buse d its disc re t ion by

fa iling to re quire a thre shold showing tha

t the le tte r wa s not privile ge d be fore re vie wing it in c ame ra , any suc h e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Unite d State

s v . TheC

orp. (In re

Grand J ury

1 B rown’ s untim e ly re que st for le ave to a m e nd his c om

pla i nt is DENIED. B rown ha s not de m o nstra te d that, e ve n if we ove rlooke d his untime line s s, the sta nding de fic i e nc ie s c ould be c ure d by the propose d

am e ndm e nt. 4Inv e

stigation) , 974 F.2d 1068, 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 1992) (“ Although the distric t
c ourt did a

pply [the wrong] thre shold, thea pplic a tion of thec orre c t thre s hold would not c ha

nge the re sult.” ); Unite d State s v . dela J

ara , 973 F.2d 746, 749 (9th C ir. 1992) (“ The distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

de c lining to [re quire a thre shold showing] . W e m ay , howe ve r, a ffirm the distric t c o urt ‘ on a

ny ground fa irly supporte d

by the re c ord.’ ” (footnote om itte d) (quoting Le e v . Unite d State s , 809 F.2d 1406, 1408 (9th C ir. 1987))). Appe lle e s e a sily

m a de the “ m inim a l showing”tha t the inform a tion in the Vic ta Le tte r wa s not privile ge d or wa s subje c t to thec rim e -fraud e xc e ption. In re Grand J ury Inv e s tigation , 974 F.2d a

t 1071, 1074. B a

nk of Am e ric a ’ s c ounse l
re c e ive d a

n unsolic ite d e m a il from

an unknown se n de r that “ s trongly sugge st[e d] that the re ha [d] be e n m a lfe a sa nc e in c onne c tion with solic i ting c la i m s for [B rown’ s la wsuit]
. ” Appe l le e s re fe rre d the distric t c ourt to c onsum e r a le rts issue d by the

5Fe de ra l Tra de C om m ission “ a

bout simila

r fra ud sc he m e s unde rly ing m a ss
a c tions.” 2 3. B rown ha s fa ile d to show tha t the Vic ta

Le tte r wa s privile ge d a

n d not subje c t to thec rim e –fra

ud e x c e ption. Se e Unite d State s v . Rue hle , 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th C i r. 2009) (pla c ing the burde n of proof on thepla intiff). B rown c o nte nds that the le tte r wa s writte n by

a form e r Exe c utive Offic e r of Life Sav e rs (Vic ta ), who “ ha d sa

t in on se ve ra l m e e tings with B rown a nd his c o unse l whe re the litiga tion wa s disc usse d.” B rown doe s not show tha t the Vic ta le tte r c onta ins

“ c o nfide ntia l c om

m unic a tions be twe e n [B rown a nd his a ttorne y ] , whic h [we re ]
m a de for the purpose of giving le g a l a dvic e .” Unite d State s v . Ric he y , 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th C ir. 2011). R a the r, B rown a dm its tha t the m e e tings Vic t a

atte nde d
we re c onduc te d

for inform a tion-ga

the ring a nd tha t m ultipleLife Save rs offic e rs
we re pre se nt. Furthe r, B rown ha s not shown tha t Life Save rs ha d

a c om m on

2 W e re je c t B rown’ s c onte ntion tha t C a lifornia

Stat e B ar, Form a l Opinion No. 2013-188 (“ State B ar Opinion” ) prohibite d Appe lle e s from re fe rring to the c onte nts of theVic t a

Le tte r in the ir re que st for a n Orde r to Show C a

use . The State B ar Opinion is advisory , not la w; the pa rtie s we re , inste a d , gove rne d by Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 26(b)(5)(B ). Eve n if the State B ar Opinion im pose d a le ga lly binding e thic a l obliga

tion, it doe s not a

pply he re . The State B ar Opinion a ddre s se s a

situa tion in whic h a

n attorne y re c e ive s a

n unsolic ite d le tte r that purports to c onta in c onfide ntia l c om m unic a tions be twe e n

an opposing pa

rty and its c ounse l. Upon le arning of the c onfide ntia l c onte nts of the le tte r, the attorne y would be e t hic a l ly obliga te d to c e a se re a ding a

nd re linquish the

le tte r. Suc h wa s not the situa tion he re . 6inte re s t in thelitiga tion, suc h tha

t B rown’ s c o m

m unic a tions with his c ounse l we re prote c te d de spite Life Save rs’ s offic e rs’ pre s e nc e . S e e Pac . Pic ture

s C orp. v . U.S. Dist. C t. for the C .D. of C a l. (In re Pac . Pic ture

s C orp.) , 679 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [A] sha

re d de sire to se e the sa

m e outc om e in a

le ga l m atte r is insuffic ie nt to bring a

c om m unic a tion be twe e n

two pa rtie s within [thec om

m on inte re s t doc trine ] . Inste a d, the pa rtie s m ust m ake the c om

m unic ation in pursuit of a joint stra te gy in a c c orda

nc e with som e form

of a gre e m e n t—

whe t he r writte n or unwritte n.” ). The Vic t a le tte r is not prote c te d by

the work-produc t privile ge , be c a use B rown ha s not shown tha t the Vic ta

Le tte r, or a

ny portion of the

Vic ta Le tte r, wa s

“ pre pa re d in a ntic ipation of litiga

tion or for tria l by

or for a nothe r party

or its
re pre se ntative .” Fe d. R . C i v. P. 26(b)(3)(A). AFFIRM E D.

7