JONATHAN WOODS V. TAYLOR BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAG, No. 12-17483 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN B. WOODS and KERRIE WOODS, No. 12-17483 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00723-GMS Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. TAYLOR BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Jonathan B. Woods and Kerrie Woods appeal pro se from the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Rule of Civil Procedure 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’ claims against BAC Home Loans Servicing LP and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated because “Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’ before the trustee may commence a nonjudicial foreclosure.” Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783-84 (Ariz. 2012) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ leave to amend because it had previously granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining that “the district court’s discretion in denying amendment is ‘particularly broad’ when it has previously given leave to amend”). AFFIRMED. 2 12-17483

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.