Court Opinion

ID: 9409846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 18:00:54.026628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.899016
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 19 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCUS FOSTER,                                  No.    22-15923

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:22-cv-00526-CDS-NJK
 v.

MIDFIRST BANK; QUALITY LOAN                     MEMORANDUM*
SERVICE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                    Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 17, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff-Appellant Marcus Foster appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

action against Defendants-Appellees MidFirst Bank (“MidFirst”), Mortgage

      *
             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).
Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), and Quality Loan Service Corporation

(“Quality”). Foster sued Defendants-Appellees seeking to prevent or invalidate the

foreclosure sale of his property as fraudulent. After Defendants-Appellees moved to

dismiss, Foster filed a notice of lis pendens. The district court found that Foster’s

complaint failed to meet the pleading standard for fraud, dismissed the suit, denied

the preliminary injunction, and expunged the notice of lis pendens.

      We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th

Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

      Even construing pro se filings liberally, Foster’s arguments before this court

concern solely the bills of exchange he submitted to Defendants-Appellees in an

alternative attempt to settle the debt. We only consider arguments that were

properly presented to the district court. See Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975,

981 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n issue will generally be deemed waived on appeal if the

argument was not raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.”). In the notice

of lis pendens—but not in his complaint—Foster argued that Defendants-Appellees

must be compelled to return the bills of exchange. A notice of lis pendens was an

inappropriate vehicle for this relief, however. See Levinson v. Eighth Jud. Dist.

Ct., 857 P.2d 18, 20 (Nev. 1993) (the purpose of lis pendens is “to prevent the

transfer or loss of real property which is the subject of dispute in the action” the lis

                                           2
pendens concerns), abrogated on other grounds, Tahican, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist.

Ct., 523 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2023). The district court did not construe Foster’s request

for relief as an additional claim or provide an opportunity to amend, which was not

an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles,

754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). This request is therefore not properly before

this court. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“[O]ur review [at the motion to dismiss stage] is limited to the contents of the

complaint.”). We do not reach Foster’s argument that Defendants-Appellees

committed fraud by allegedly refusing to accept or return the bills of exchange

because this argument was not adequately presented below.

        Foster’s brief does not discuss his claims, presented below, that the assignment

of the deed of trust securing the promissory note documenting Foster’s home loan

was invalid for the purposes of foreclosure and therefore the ensuing foreclosure

proceedings were fraudulent. We accordingly do not address them here. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).

        AFFIRMED.1

1
    Foster’s motion to compel discovery, Dkt. No. 4, is dismissed as moot.

                                            3