N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID A. PHILIP, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B AC HOM E LOANS SER VIC ING, LP; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16155 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01499-JC M PAL M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. David A. Philip a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l and sta te la w c la im s re late d

to the ongoing fore c l osure of his prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2016 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).a

distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6). C e rv ante s v . C o untryw ide HomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Philip’ s wrongful fore c losure and quie t title c la im s be c a

use Philip did not a

lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha t he wa s not in de fa ult on his loa

n or tha t de fe n da nts e xe rc ise d the powe r of sa le . S e e Bre liant v
. Pre fe rre d Equitie

s C orp. , 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996) (pe r c uriam ) (“ In a quie t title a c tion, theburde n of proof re sts with the pla intiff to provegood title in him se lf.” ); C

o llins v
. Union Fe d. Sav . & Loan Ass’n , 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983) (wrongful fore c l osure c la im re q uire s a lle gations tha

t a le nde r e xe rc ise d the powe r of sa le and fore c lose d upon prope rty whe n no fa ilure of pe rform anc e e xiste d on the pa rt of the borrowe r). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Philip’ s sla

nde r of titlec la im

be c a use Philips fa ile d to a lle g e suffic ie nt fa c ts to show a fa lse sta te m e nt re ga

rding thetitle to his property . Se e Ex e c . Mgmt., Ltd. v . Tic or Title Ins. C o. , 963 P.2d 465, 478 (1998) (“ Slande r of titleinvolve s fa lse and m a lic ious c om m unic ations dispa

ra ging to one ’ s title in la

nd, a nd c a using spe c ia l da

m a ge .” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Philip’ s c ivil c o n spira c y c la im a fte r

1 2 - 1 6 1 5 5 2dism issing the unde rly i ng c a use s of a c tion. Se e

, e . g. , E ik e lbe rge r v . Tolotti , 611 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Nev . 1980) (c onspira c y a c tion for da

m a ge s ge ne ra lly

m ust be ba se d on a

via ble , inde pe n de nt

c a use of a c tion). Philip la c ks sta

nding to e nforc e the te rm s of a ny pooling a nd se rvic e a gre e m e nt a

nd the re fore c a

nnot c ha lle nge any

a ssignm e nt into a

se c uritiz e d trust. Se e W ood v . Ge r

mann , 331 P.3d 859, 861-62 (Ne v. 2014) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [A] ppe lla

nt, who is ne ithe r a

pa rty nor a n inte nde d third-pa

rty be ne fic ia

ry of the [pooling a nd se rvic i ng a gre e m e nt] , la c ke d sta n d ing to c ha lle nge the a ssignm e nt’ s va lidity .” ). W e re

je c t Philip’ s c onte ntion tha

t the se c uritiz ation of his loa n re nde re d his noteor de e d of trust fra udule nt. Philip’ s c onte ntions tha

t de fe nda nts la c k sta

nding to pursue fore c losure , a nd that the a ssignm e nt tra

nsfe rring the inte re st in the prom issory note and de e d of trust a re inva lid, in pa

rt be c a use of the use of M o rtga ge Ele c tronic R e gistra t ion Sy ste m s , Inc . (“ M E R S” ) a s the be ne fic ia ry of the de e d of trust a

nd le nde r’ s nom ine e , a

re fore c lose d by Ede lste in v . Bank of N e w York . Me l lon , 286 P.3d 249 (Ne v. 2012) (e n ba

nc ). Se e id. at 259-60, 262 (M ER S m ay prope rly a c t a s be ne fic ia ry of a trust de e d, se pa

rating theinstrum e nts doe s not pe rm an e ntly ba r fore c losure , a

nd a n e ntity ha s a uthority to pursuefore c l osure whe n it is e ntitle d to e nforc e both thede e d of trust a n d the note ).
1 2 - 1 6 1 5 5

3W e re je c t Philip’ s c onte ntions tha t he wa s im

prope rly de nie d disc o ve ry , tha

t the d istric t c o urt wa s bia se d, a nd tha t the distric t c ourt m a de im prope r findings of fa c t . AFFIRM E D .

1 2 - 1 6 1 5 5 4