NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

W. MARK FRAZER; KONILYNN

FRAZER,

 Appellants,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan

Stanley ABS Capital I Inc Trust 2006-NC4

its Successors in Interest, Agents,

Assignees and/or Assignors and through

its Servicing Agent Wells Fargo Bank

N.A.; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE

SERVICES INC.,

 Appellees.

No. 12-35502

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05454-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chapter 7 debtors W. Mark Frazer and Konilynn Frazer appeal pro se from

the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment

dismissing the Frazers’ adversary proceeding against Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review

independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district

court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th

Cir. 2004). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for

clear error its factual findings. Id. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment to appellee

Deutsche Bank National Trust because the Frazers’ loan is in default, and appellee

had physical possession of the mortgage note indorsed in blank and therefore had

the power to enforce the mortgage note. See Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.030(7) (a

declaration by the beneficiary stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the

promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient

proof for nonjudicial foreclosure); Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 326 P.3d 768,

774 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that “[a]bsent conflicting evidence, the

declaration [of a note holder under Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.030(7)] should be

taken as true”).

 We reject the Frazers’ contentions concerning allegedly inadequate

2 12-35502
discovery, alleged due process violations, and claims arising from the pooling and

servicing agreement to which they were not parties. 

We do not consider any documents attached to the Frazers’ opening brief

that are not part of the district court record. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am.,

842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Frazers’ motion to strike Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s

answering brief, set forth in the Frazers’ reply brief, is denied. 

The Frazers’ motion to remove or disqualify Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company’s counsel, Lane Powell, PC, and Mr. Spellman, on the basis of

Spellman’s previous representation, set forth in the Frazers’ reply brief, is denied. 

See Wash. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.9(a) (no violation of an attorney’s duty to a former

client where current representation is not “substantially related” to previous

representation).

AFFIRMED.

3 12-35502