NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. 312 POCONO RANCH TRUST,

Defendant

- Appellant, and
SIERRA RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant. No. 19

- 17504
D.C. No. 2:17

- cv - 01783

- APG

- DJA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 20, 2021 * * San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO, ** * District

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

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the 

# FILED

OCT 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Judge. Defendant

- Appellant 312 Pocono Ranch Trust (Pocono Ranch) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary ju dgment in favor of Plaintiff

- Appellee Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar)

. We r eview de novo , s ee Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc. , 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2011) , and affirm. We further hold that sanctions are warranted against Pocono Ranch and its counsel for filing a frivolous appeal, and we refer the determination of the sanction s amount to our Acting Appellate Commissioner, Lisa Fitzgerald. The district court held that the Federal Foreclosure Bar preclude s the extinguishment of Nationstar’s interest in a property located at 312 Pocono Ranch Avenue, North Las Vegas (Property) , which was purchased by Pocono Ranch at a HOA foreclosure sale. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3). For the following reasons, w e
agree with the district court’s conclusion and affirm

. Pocono Ranch’s arguments on appeal are all foreclosed by binding precedent of our court and the Nevada Supreme Court. First, t he Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( Freddi e Mac ) is the underlying owner of the deed of trust and possessed an enforceable interest in the property at issue

. Pocono Ranch argues that Freddie Mac’s interest in the property is void because it failed to record its interest in the property when it ac quired the

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.3

underlying loan and deed of trust in July 2008 , as mandated by the Nevada Revised
Statutes § § 111.010 , 111.325

. But this contention is f oreclosed by binding precedent of the Nevada Supreme Court, which has held that “there is no requirement that the beneficial interest in the deed of trust need[s] to be assigned or conveyed to Freddie Mac in order for Freddie Mac to acquire ownership of the loan,” and that “Nevada’s recor ding statutes d[o] not require Freddie Mac to publicly record its ownership interest as a prerequisite for establishing that interest.” Daisy Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 445 P.3d 846, 849 (Nev. 2019). Instead, Freddie Mac’s interest in the property “r emains fully secured by the deed of trust when the record deed of trust beneficiary is in an agency relationship with the note holder. ” Id. Here, it is not disputed that Freddie Mac has an authorized representative relationship with Mortgage Electronic R egistration Systems, Inc. (MERS) , Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) , and Nationstar, all of which were at one point listed as the record beneficiary of the corresponding deed of trust. Moreover, Pocono Ranch’s argument h as been repeatedly rejected and fo reclosed by this court. See , e.g ., Berezovsky v. Moniz , 869 F.3d 923 , 932 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Nevada law requires recording of a lien for it to be enforceable, but does not mandate that the recorded instrument identify the note owner by name.”); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC, Series 9229 Millikan Ave ., 996 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Nevada’s recording statutes do not require Fannie Mae4

to be identifi ed as the beneficiary of record on the Deed in order to establish its ownership interest in the loan

. ”). F or purposes of the Federal Foreclosure Bar, we have repeatedly concluded that virtually identical evidence

— Freddie Mac and servicer business records, supported by explanatory employee declarations and relevant g uide provisions

— established an enforceable property interest under Nevada law. See Berezovsky , 869 F.3d at 932

– 33; Saticoy Bay , 996 F.3d at 956. The record shows that this case is no different

. Second, Pocono Ranch argues in the alternative that Freddie Mac does not have an interest in the property because the assignments of the deed of trust state that the owner s of the underlying loan were Ocwen and then Nationstar. This argument is also without any merit. None of the assignments state that the owner of the underlying loan was Ocwen or Nationstar. The assignments merely identify the entity that serves as the record beneficiary, which is consistent with Nevada law. As explained abov e, Nevada law does not require Freddie Mac, the owner of the underlying loan, to be recorded on the deed. See Daisy Tr., 445 P.3d at 849; accord Berezovsky , 869 F.3d at 932

– 33. Finally, Nationstar also filed a motion for sanctions against Pocono Ranch

a nd its counsel. We conclude that sanctions against Pocono Ranch and its counsel are warranted in this case and refer the determination of the sanction s amount to our Acting Appellate Commissioner. We have “ discretion to impose damages5

against litigants , . . . as a sanction for bringing a frivolous appeal. ” Maisano v. United States , 908 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1990) (cit ations omitted ) ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1912 (“W here a judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court or a court of appeals, the court in its discretion may adjudge to the prevailing party just damages for his delay, and single or double costs. ” ); Fed. R. App. P. 38 ( “ If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court an d reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee. ”)

. In addition to imposing “sanctions against the appellant directly,” we may impose “personal sanctions against counsel” as well. In re Girardi , 611 F.3d 1027, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010)

. As explained above, Pocono Ranch’s arguments lack any merit and are foreclosed by binding precedent. T he arguments are “in direct conflict with firmly established rules of law for which there is no arguably reasonable expect ation of reversal or favorable modification.” In re Becraft , 885 F.2d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) . Because “the results are obvious ” and the “arguments of error are wholly without merit, ” th is appeal “is frivo lous .” Maisano , 908 F.2d at 411 (citation omitted). 1

1 We also take into consideration the fact that the Nevada Supreme Court has rejected identical arguments by Pocono Ranch’s counsel in at least four cases and that counsel’s repeated attempts of offering the same frivolous arguments further warrants the imp osition of sanctions

. See , e.g. , Three Palms Invs. Grp., LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A. , No. 78225, 2020 WL 3469173 (Nev. June 24, 2020); Premier6

The district court’s order and judgment in favor of Nationstar is
A FFIRMED

. Nationstar’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part, with the determination of the sanction s amount REFER R ED to the Acting Appellate Commissioner.

One Holdings, Inc. v. Ditech Fin. LLC , No. 77526, 2020 WL 2526070 (Nev. May 15, 2020); RH Kids, LLC v. Nationstar M ortg., LLC , No. 77760, 2020 WL 407053 (Nev. Jan. 23, 2020); Perecin v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , No. 77597, 2020 WL 407132 (Nev. Jan. 23, 2020) ; s ee also RH Kids LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC , No. 79620

- COA, 2020 WL 7238319, at *2 n.1 (Nev. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2020) ( explicitly admonishing counsel for the Trust for improperly disregarding “his obligations under R.P.C. 3.1 to only advance arguments if there is a basis in law and fact for doing so and, when [the] existing precedent does not align with his clients’ intere sts, to present good

- faith arguments for its modification or reversal”).