Azadeh Chegini v. Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, No. 18-1681 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1681 AZADEH CHEGINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-12; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Individually and as successor to: Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (“Countrywide-Bana”); SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-12; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INCORPORATED; DOES 1 - 100, Defendants – Appellees, and MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, (“MGIC”), Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00927-TSE-TCB) Submitted: February 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Decided: March 5, 2019 Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Azadeh Chegini, Appellant Pro Se. William Dean Ledoux, Jr., ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Richmond, Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Azadeh Chegini seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action arising out of her default on her home mortgage. Before addressing the merits of Chegini’s appeal, we first must be assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We find that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s November 2017 dismissal order because Chegini designated only the district court’s May 2018 dismissal order in her notice of appeal, in contravention of Fed. R. Civ. P. 3(c)(1)(B), causing one Defendant to receive no notice of her appeal. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we dismiss Chegini’s appeal as to the November 2017 dismissal order. However, because the remaining Defendants received notice of Chegini’s appeal and have had an opportunity to brief all of the issues in this case, Chegini’s failure to designate the March 2018 dismissal order in her notice of appeal did not prejudice them. Thus we may review this order in addition to the May 2018 dismissal order. See id. Having reviewed the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chegini v. Harborview Mortg. Loan Tr., No. 1:17-cv00927-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2018 & May 31, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
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.
