N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HESTER

M
. HUNT, JR .; LYNDA SUSAN HUNT, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. U.S. B ANK N.A., a s Truste e for the Holde rs of M a str Adjusta ble R ate M ortga ge s Trust 2007-3; B ANK OF AM E R IC A N.A., Suc c e ssor by M e rge r to B AC Hom e Loa

ns Se rvic ing LP, fka C ountry wide Hom e Loa

ns Se rvic ing LP, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55631 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-02171-VAPOP C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , R ive rside
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 Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL E D
FEB 23 2015 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : GR

AB ER and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a nd M OLLOY, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. C he ste r and Ly

nda Hunt a ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of the ir third
c om pla i nt for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im and de nia l of le ave to a

m e nd. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history , we ne e d not re c ount it here .

I.

“ W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6).” C e rv a nte s v . C o untryw ide HomeLoans, Inc
. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). “ T h e distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of le av e to a

m e nd the c om

pla int is re vie we d for a

n a buse of disc re t ion.” Id.
at 1041. II. The Hunts c ha lle n ge the dism issa l of the i r third c o m pla int without le ave to
am e nd but, on a

ppe a l, c ite only Glask

i v . Bank of Ame ric a, N

. A. , 160 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 449 (C t. App. 2013), a

nd c onte st whe the r the y

la c ke d sta

nding to c ha lle nge the
se c uritiz ation proc e s s. C onstrue d broa dly , the ir a rgum e nt a pplie s only to the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of the ir de c la ratory re l ie f c la i m . The re fore , we ne e d not

*** The Honora

ble Dona ld W
. M olloy , Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2c onside r the dism isse d c l a im s not ra ise d on a ppe a l, spe c ific a lly

the Hunts’
a c c ounting, qua s i-c ontra c t, Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t, a nd C a lifornia Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w c la im s . Entm’t Re

s e arc h Grp., Inc . v . Ge ne sis C re ativ e Grp., Inc
. , 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ W e will not c onside r a ny c la im s that we re not a c tua lly

argue d in [a ppe lla nt’ s ] ope ning brie f.” ). III. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the Hunts’ de c l aratory re lie f c la im

on two ba se s: (1) the Hunts la c k sta nding to c ha lle n ge the a

uthority of B ank of Am e ric a and U.S. B ank to fore c lose ; a nd (2) the Hunts ha

ve fa ile d to a sse rt a

n
a c tua l c ontrove rsy

a s re quire d for de c la

ratory re lie f. Unde r the m a

jority rule in C a lifornia , borrowe rs la c k sta nding to c ha lle nge the a uthority of the fore c losing e ntity
. J e nk ins v . J P Morgan C

hase Bank

, N .A. , 156 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 912, 924–27 (Ct. App. 2013). The c ontra ry holding in Glask

i ha s be e n wide ly

re je c t e d. Se e

, e .g. , Bow e n v . Bank

of N .Y. Me llon , 2014 W L 6673272,
at *4 (C a l. C t. App. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublishe d ); Mottale

v . K imball Tire

y & St. J ohn, LLP , 2014 W L 109354, a t *4 (S.D. C a l . Ja

n. 10, 2014) (slip c opy ); Rajamin
v . De utsc heBank

N at’l Trust C

o. , 757 F.3d 79, 90 (2d C ir. 2014). W e , the re fore , ne e d not follow it. Ry man v . Se ars, Roe buc k & C o. , 505 F.3d 993, 994 (9th C ir. 2007) (a fe d e ra l c ourt ne e d

not follow a “ sta

te inte rm e d iat e a

p pe lla te c ourt de c ision 3[if it] finds c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the sta t e ’ s supre m e c ourt like ly

would not follow it” ). 1 Additionally , the Hunts ha ve fa ile d to se t forth a

va lid c l a im

for de c la ratory
re lie f. “ Any

pe rson . . . who de sire s a de c la ration of his or her rights or dutie s with
re spe c t to a

nothe r . . . m a

y , in c ase s of ac tual c ontrov e rsy re lating to the le ga l rights a nd dutie s of the re spe c tive pa rtie s, bring a

n origina l a c t ion or
c ross-c om

pla int in the supe rior c ourt for a de c la ration of his or her rights . . . .” C a l. C iv. P. C ode § 1060 (e m pha sis a dde d). “ The funda m e nta l ba sis of de c la

ratory
re lie f is the e xiste nc e of an a c tual, pre se nt c ontrov e rsy ove r a

prope r subje c t.” J e nk ins , 156 C a l. R

ptr. 3d a t 926 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The Hunts e xe c ute d a

note and a

de e d of trust c onta ining a powe r of sa le
c la use and provisions a

llowing C ountry

wide or M ER S to tra

n sfe r the note without notic e . The H unts a lso do not dispute tha t the y de fa ulte d on the ir loa

n. Eve n if the

1 The Supre m e C o urt of C a lifornia ha s gra nte d re v ie w in two c a se s re

je c ting Glask i
. Se e Yv anov a v . N

e w C e ntury Mortg. C orp ., 172 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 104 (C t. App. 2014), re v i e w grante d and opinion supe rse de d by Yv anov a , 331 P.3d 1275 (C a l. 2014); K

e shtgar v . U.S. Bank

, N .A. , 172 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 818 (C a l. App. 2014), re v i e w grante d and opinion supe rse de d by K e shtgar , 334 P.3d 686 (C a l . 2014). The re vie w in thosec a se s, howe ve r, will not a ffe c t this a ppe a l be c a

u se it is lim

ite d to a c tions for wrongful fore c losure
. Se e Yv anov a , 331 P.3d 1275. The Hunts ha ve ne ithe r state d tha

t the y inte nd to a dd a

wrongful fore c losure c la im nor provide d any e xpla nation of thele ga l a

nd fa c tua l grounds for a dding a wrongful fore c losure c la im
. Se e C

e r v ante s , 656 F.3d a

t 1043. 4im

prope r se c uritiz ation oc c urre d or the a ssignm e nts we re fra udule nt, the Hunts a

re not a pa rty to thosetra

nsa c tions a

nd a re not the vic tim s. The ir de c la ratory re lie f
c la im fa ils be c a

use the y c a nnot show the

e xiste nc e of a

pre se nt, a c tua l c ontrove rsy be twe e n the m se lve s a

nd B ank of Am e ric a

an d U. S. B a

nk. Se e id. at

927. IV. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing le ave to a m e nd be c a use (1) the Hunts ha d thre e opportunitie s to sta t e a va lid c la i m , a

nd (2) a ny
am e ndm e nt would befa c tua lly and le ga l ly im pla u s ible
. Se e id. at

929. AFFIRM E D
.

5