WENDLE LEHNERD V. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REG., No. 15-16641 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENDLE V. LEHNERD, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16641 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01811-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Wendle V. Lehnerd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., * 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). 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the appeal. Lehnerd failed to obtain injunctive relief before the trustee’s sale of the property, and he therefore waived any defenses and objections to the sale. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33–811(C) (defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale are waived if they are not raised in an action resulting in injunctive relief before the sale); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 275 P.3d 598, 600 (Ariz. 2012) (en banc) (once a trustee’s sale is completed, “a person subject to § 33–811(C) cannot later challenge the sale based on pre-sale defenses or objections”). Because the foreclosure sale has been completed, we cannot grant Lehnerd any effective relief and dismiss Lehnerd’s appeal as moot. See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). DISMISSED. 2 15-16641

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.