WAYNE SEARE V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, No. 17-15916 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAYNE A. SEARE; MARINETTE TEDOCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15916 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00907-JCMCWH MEMORANDUM* BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA Bank of New York, on behalf of Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-18CB, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-18CB; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Wayne A. Seare and Marinette Tedoco appeal pro se from the district court’s * 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). judgment dismissing their action related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure claims because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants failed to comply with Nevada law. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080 (setting forth requirements of a trustee sale under Nevada law); see also Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 258 (Nev. 2012) (en banc) (explaining that under Nevada law, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. may properly act as beneficiary of a trust deed, and an entity has authority to pursue foreclosure when it is entitled to enforce both the deed of trust and the note). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15916

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.