N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ER IC J. SKINNER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, truste e of W a M u M ortga ge Pa ss-Through C e rtific a te s Se rie s 2005- AR 8 Trust; M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC R EGISTR

ATION SYSTEM S, INC ., (M ER S), De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15301 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00710-GM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urra y

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : T A L L M

A N , N GUY E

N , a n d O W E N S , C i r c u i t J

u d g e s . E r i c J
. S k i n

n e r a p p e a l s p r o s e f

r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t d i s mi s s i n g h i s 

# FIL ED
JUL 3 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a c t i o n a

r i s i n g f r o m f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a

v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u

n d e r 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. W e re v i e w de novo. C e rv ante s v . C ountry w ideHome Loans, Inc
. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the
re c o rd, Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008), a n d we a ffirm
. Dism issa l of Skinne r’ s c la im for “ e rrone ous re pre se n tation a s to sta nding to fore c lose ” wa s prope r be c a use his a lle ga tions did not “ pla usibly sugge st a n
e ntitle m e nt to re lie f.” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); se e also Zadrozny v . Bank of N

. Y. Me l lon , 720 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ A riz ona la w re c ogniz e s a

suc c e ssor truste e ’ s a

u thority to initia te and c o nduc t a

fore c losure
sa le a fte r the borrowe rs’ de fa ult, without a

ny re q uire m e nt tha

t the be ne fic ia

ry de m onstra

te posse ssion of thenote unde rly ing the de e d of trust.” ); Hogan v
. W ashington Mut. Bank

, N .A. , 277 P.3d 781, 782 (Ariz . 2012) (e n ba nc ) (“ Ariz ona ’ s non-judic ia l fore c l osure sta tute s do not re quire the be ne fic i ary to prove its a

uthority or ‘ show the note ’ be fore the truste e m ay c om m e nc e a non-judic ia l fore c losure .” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Skinne r’ s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt. Se e Spradlin v . Le ar Sie gle r Mgmt. Se rv

s. C o . , 926 F.2d 865, 867 (9th C i r. 1991) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). Skinne r’ s m otion to file an ove rsiz e d re ply brie f, subm itte d on Se pte m be r 27, 2012, is gra

nte d, a nd the C le rk is dire c te d to file the re ply brie f

1 2
- 1 5 3 0 1 2subm itte d on Se pte m be r 27, 2012. De fe nda nts’ m o tion to strike

Skinne r’ s supple m e nta l e xc e rpts of re c ord, subm itte d on Oc tobe r 10, 2012, is gra nte d. Skinne r’ s re que st to a

m e nd his re ply

brie f and atta c h a

n e xhibit, subm

itte d on Oc tobe r 19, 2012, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2
- 1 5 3 0 1 3