N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL ENOS; PAULA ENOS,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. U.S. B ANK, N.A.,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-15828 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-06101-M M C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ax ine M
. C he sne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN, M UR GUIA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs M ic h a e l a

nd Pa ula Enos a p p e a l the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting de fe nda n t U.S. B ank’ s m otion for judgme nt on theple a dings. Pla intiffs tim e ly
a ppe a le d, a

nd we have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B e c a use the 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pa

rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the
a ppe a l.

“ A judgm e n t on the ple a dings is properly grante d whe n, ta

king a ll the
a lle gations in the

ple a dings a s true , the m oving pa rty is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w.” Ow e ns v . K

aise r Found. He alth Plan, Inc
. , 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th C ir. 2001) (c ita

tion omitte d). B e c a

use R ule 12(b) m otions to dism iss a nd R ule 12(c ) m otions for judgme nt on theple a dings a re “ func t iona lly

ide ntic a l , the sa

m e sta nda rd of re vie w a

pplic a ble to a R ule 12(b) m otion a

p plie s to its R

ule 12(c )
ana log.” Dw ork

in v . Hustle r Mag., Inc
. , 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th C ir. 1989). Dism issa l is wa

rrante d if the c om

pla int fa ils to a lle g e e ithe r a “ c ogniz a ble le ga l the o ry ” or “ suffic ie nt fa c ts [] unde r a c ogniz a b le le g a l the ory .” Baliste ri v
. Pac ific a Polic e De

p’t , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th C ir. 1990). He re , on de novo re vie w, we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt. Se e Milne e x re l. C oy nev . Ste

phe n Sle s inge r, Inc
. , 430 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th C ir. 2005). 1. To pre v a il on a

c la im to c anc e l an instrum e nt pursua nt to C a l. C iv. C ode § 3412, “ a

pla intiff m

ust prove (1) the instrum e nt is void or voida ble due to, for
e xam ple , fra u d; a nd (2) the re is a

re a sona b le a ppre h e nsion of se rious injury inc l uding pe c unia

ry loss or the pre

judic ia l a lte ra tion of one ’ s position.” U.S. Bank N at’l Ass’n v . N

aife h , 205 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 120, 128 (C t. App. 2016) (c ita tion
2om i tte d). W e c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not err by ruling tha

t pla intiffs fa ile d to a l le ge a

c ogniz a ble le ga l the o ry in support of the ir c la im
. The De e d of Trust na

m e d M ER S a s the be ne fic ia ry of the De e d of Trust a

nd the n om ine e for the origina l le nde r and its a ssigns. Se e Le e v . C i ty of Los Ange le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th C ir. 2001) (e xpla ining tha t a c ourt m ay

c onside r m ate ria l be y ond the ple a dings without c onve rting the m o tion to dism iss into a m o tion for
sum m ary judgm e nt if “ the doc um e nts’ a uthe ntic ity

is not c o nte ste d

and the pla i ntiff’ s c om

p la int ne c e ssa

rily re l ie s on the m ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m arks a nd a lte ra tions omitte d)). The De e d of Trust furthe r provide d tha t M ER S ha d the right to e xe rc i s e any and a ll of the inte re sts of theorigina l le nde r. Unde r C a lifornia la w, the De e d of Trust pe rm itte d M ER S to se ll or a ssign both the prom issory

note an d the De e d of Trust on be ha lf of the origina l le nde r. Se e Fonte n ot v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 129 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 467, 477 (C t. App. 2011), disapprov e d of on othe r grounds by Yv anov a v . N

e w C e ntury Mortg. C

orp. , 365 P.3d 845, 859 n.13 (C a l. 2016). Ac c ordingly , whe n M ER S e xe c ute d the Assignm e nt of De e d of Trust it tra nsfe rre d both theprom issory note and the De e d of Trust to U.S. B ank. U.S. B ank wa s the be ne fic ia ry of the De e d of Trust a

t the tim e of the fore c losure sa le and wa s e ntitle d to purc h a se the prope rty

by c re dit bid. Se e Fonte not , 129 C a l. R

ptr. 3d a t 477 (“ Ordina

rily , the owne r of a prom issory
3note se c ure d by a de e d of trust is de signa

te d a s the be ne fic i ary

of the de e d of trust.” (c iting 11 Thom

pson on R e a l Prope rty

(2d e d. 1998) § 94.02(b)(7)(i), p. 346)); Yv anov a , 365 P.3d a t 850 (e xpla i ning tha

t a truste e m a

y only initia te fore c losure “ a t the dire c tion of thepe rson or e ntity tha t c urre ntly holds the note
and the be ne fic ia l inte re st unde r the de e d of trust” ); C a l. C iv. C ode . § 2924h(b). The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding plaintiffs ha d not a lle ge d a c ogniz a ble the o ry unde rpinning the ir a lle gation tha t the De e d Upon Sa le wa s void for la c k of
c onside ra tion. 2. B e c a use we c onc l ude the distric t c ourt did not err by ruling pla intiffs ha d not a lle ge d a

c ogniz a b le le ga l the ory , we do not c onside r the pa rtie s’ argum e nts
re lating to te n de r a

nd pre judic e . AFFIRM E D.

4