NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH JAMES PONTHIEUX,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. BANK OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 16593 D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 00412

- KJM

- EFB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017 **
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Keith James Ponthieux appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to a mortgage loan on real property quit claimed to Ponthieux by the borrower s . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r eview de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir cuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16593

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We affirm.
Dismissal of Ponthieux’s quiet title, cancellation of instruments, and declaratory relief claims was proper because an untimely assignment of the d eed of

t rust under a pooling and servicing agreement is not void

. See In re Turner , 859 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an untimely assignment to a securitized trust, m ade after the securitized trust’ s closing date, is not void but merely voidable ); cf. Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp. , 365 P.3d 845, 858 ( Cal. 2016) ( a plaintiff bringing a wrongful foreclosure claim has standing only when challenging a void assignment).
Dismissal of Ponthieux’s claims premised on the authority of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) to assign the deed of trust was
proper because the assignment was valid under California law

. See Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467, 479

- 80 (Ct. App. 2011) (assignment is valid where MERS acts as the lender’ s nominee when it assign s an interest in the deed of trust ), disapproved of on other grounds by Yvanova , 365
P.3d at 859 n.13.3 15

- 16593

Contrary to Ponthieux’s contentions, th e Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s decision in Veal v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal) , 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011), does not require appellees to prove their standing to enforce the promissory note as this case is governed by California law

. See Fontenot , 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 481 ( recognizing that a promissory note is a negotiable instrument that can be transferred to another creditor , and that an assignment merely substitute s one creditor for another, without changing a borrower’s obligations under the note )

. We reject as meritless Ponthieux’ s contentions concerning any res judicata
effect allegedly caus ed by the borrower s ’ bankruptcy discharge

. AFFIRMED.