N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PAM ELA K. STATON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A (B AC ) HOM E LOANS SER

VIC ING LP; M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC REGISTR

ATION SYSTEM S, INC .; REC ONTR

UST C OM PANY, NA, a subsidia ry of B AC NA, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35399 D.C . No. 6:10-c v-01306-PA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Owe n M . Panne r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 3, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : C LIFTON, M UR GUIA, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Pa m e la Staton a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing he r fore c losure re late d a c tion for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic t ion a nd 

# FIL ED N OV 28 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.fa ilure to sta t e a c l a im upon whic h re lie f c an be grante d. W e re vie w de novo a dism issa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion, Harge r v . De p’t of Labor , 569 F.3d 898, 903 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd for fa ilure to sta

t e a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), C holla Re ady

Mix , Inc . v . C iv i sh , 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . Pla intiff’ s c la im s a

rise out of a

non-judic ia l fore c losure atte m pt tha t De fe nda nts ha ve re sc inde d a

nd ha v e c om m itte d to a

ba n doning. W e a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of the se c la im s a s m oot. A fe de ra l c ourt’ s jurisdic tion is lim ite d to a c tua l c a se s or c ontrove rsie s. U.S. C onst. a rt. III, § 2, c l. 1; Iron Arrow Honor Soc ’yv . He c k

le r , 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). If a c l a im “ ha s lost its cha

ra c te r a s a pre se nt, livec ontrove rsy ,” it is m oot. Flint v . De nnison , 488 F.3d 816, 823 (9th C ir. 2007). Fe de ra l c ourts la c k jurisdic tion “ to give opinions upon m oot que stions or a bstra c t propositions, or to de c la re princ iple s or rule s of la w whic h c a

nnot a ffe c t the m atte r in issuein the c a se be fore it.” Am. Riv e rs v . N at’l Marine

Fishe rie s Se rv ., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th C ir. 1997) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). B e c a use the non-judic i a l fore c l osure ha s be e n re sc inde d a

nd De fe nda

nts ha ve c e rtifie d to thec ourt tha

t the y will not re surre c t the proc e ss, a ny c la im c ha lle nging the n on-judic ia l fore c losure proc e ss wa s prope rly dism i sse d a s m oot.

2Dism issa l of the s e c la im s ba se d on m o otne ss doe s not pre c lude Pla intiff

from bringing a

rgum e nts re l ate d to he r loa n ’ s se c uritiz ation in the

c onte xt of a judic ia l fore c losure , should De fe nda nts c hoose to pursueone . The a c tua l c a se or c ontrove rsy

re quire m e nt is a

lim it on fe d e ra l c ourts’ jurisdic tion. Se e Iron Arrow , 464 U.S. a

t 70. A dismissa l for la c k of jurisdic tion, whic h is not a judgm e nt on the m e rits, should be

without pre

j udic e so tha

t a pla intiff m ay

re a sse rt he r c l a im s in a c om pe te nt c ourt. Fre e man v . Oak land Unified

Sc h. Dist ., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th C ir. 1999); W

age s v . IRS , 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th C ir. 1990). W e a ffirm , howe ve r, the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l with pre judic e of Staton’ s c la im of a n inva lid e nc um

bran c e unde r Ore gon R e vise d Statute s se c t ions 205.450- 205.470. The sta

tute de fine s a

n “ e nc um bran c e ” a s a

“ c la im , lie n , c ha

rge or lia bility atta c h e d to a nd binding prope

rty .” Or. R e v. Stat. § 205.450 (1). Pla intiff c la im s that se v e ra l doc um e nts c onstitute inva lid c l a im s of e nc um

branc e , inc luding the De e d of Trust, thea ssignm e nt of the De e d of Trust, thea ppointm e nt of a

suc c e ssor truste e , the Notic e of De fa ult a n d Ele c tion to Se ll, a

nd the Affida

vit of C om

plia n c e with Ore gon Se nate B ill 628 (2009). Of the se doc um e nts, only the De e d of Trust c onstitute s a

n e nc um branc e , a s it is the

only doc um e nt tha

t binds the

prope rty ; the othe r doc um e nts did not im p ose a “ c l a im , lie n, c ha

rge or lia bility ” inde pe nde nt of the D e e d of Trust itse lf. Or. R e v. Stat. § 205.450(1); Vuk anov ic h v . K

i ne , 285 P.3d 3733, 737 (Or. C t . App. 2012). B e c a use the pa rtie s a gre e that the De e d

of Trust is va lid, a nd the othe r filings do not the m se lve s c onstitute

e nc um bran c e s , Staton ha s fa ile d to sta

te a c la i m for an inva lid e nc um

branc e unde r se c tions 205.450-205.470.

“ A judgm e nt dismissing a n a c tion for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im is a judgm e nt on the m e rits,” Unite d State

s v . Be c hte l C

orp . , 648 F.2d 660, 663 (9th C ir. 1981), a nd thus, m ay be dism isse d with pre

judic e . Pla intiff a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing he r le ave to am e nd. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Pla i ntiff an a d ditiona l opportunity

to a m e nd he r c o m

pla int be c a

use any furthe r am e ndm e nt would ha

ve be e n futile . S

e e Asc on Props., Inc . v . Mobil Oil C o. , 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th C ir. 1989) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

n d e xpla ining tha

t “ [t] he distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to deny le ave to a

m e n d is pa rtic u la rly broa d whe re pla intiff ha s pre viously am e nde d the c om

p la int” ); se e a lso C

happe l v . Lab. C

orp. of Am ., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th C ir. 2000) (a distric t c ourt a c ts within its disc re tion to deny

le ave to a

m e nd whe n am e ndm e nt would befutile ). AFFIRM E D.

4